ap_material_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it explains the snapshot source, when it is null, what it misses, and that no live binding exists. This gives the agent accurate expectations about stale or missing results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact yet information-dense. The purpose is stated first, followed by a clearly labeled caveat, root cause, edge cases, and a sibling alternative—every sentence earns its place without unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains what is returned, warns about degradation, specifies failure modes, and routes the agent to a more appropriate tool. No critical information for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already documents this completely, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description's focus on behavioral caveats is appropriate; a baseline of 4 is warranted for a zero-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List material names.' It also distinguishes itself from ap_material_get_active by stating that tool is for the material you are actually working on, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly warns when not to trust the tool and points to the correct alternative: 'For the material you are actually working on, use ap_material_get_active.' It also clarifies that there is no live enumeration binding, telling the agent this is not the tool for current-session material discovery.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.