material_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that `only_problems` suppresses per-part rows, that `path` scopes to a sub-assembly, and what counts as a problem (Generic material, surface-only vendor models, missing mass). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, though the verb 'report' strongly implies it.

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 front-loaded, scannable, and free of filler. The main sentence defines the report, and the Args section adds only the details an agent needs for the two parameters not already covered in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a three-parameter reporting tool with no annotations, the description supplies enough context about scope, modes, and problem definitions for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates by documenting `path` (sub-assembly path, obtainable via `list_occurrences(depth=2)`) and `only_problems` (summary and problems only, no per-part rows). The remaining `instance` parameter is well described in the schema.

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 clearly states that this tool reports material and mass data for parts in the active assembly or part, including counts, total mass, and problem categories. It is more specific than a generic report tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like `bom` or `properties`.

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?

It implies usage by describing what is reported and how `path` limits results to a sub-assembly. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of `bom`, `properties`, or `assembly_info`.

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