find_material_substitute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool checks a 'built-in knowledge base of FDM filament compatibility' and returns ranked alternatives with trade-off descriptions. It does not disclose side effects, destructive behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context, which is adequate but could be more explicit about non-destructive nature.

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 well-structured and concise: a one-line summary, a paragraph explaining functionality, and a formatted Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return type (ranked list with trade-off descriptions). It could mention error handling or that the knowledge base is not user-updatable, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description includes a detailed Args section that explains each parameter: material (original filament material with examples), reason (optional filter with enumerated values), and min_score (threshold range). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, which only provides types and defaults. The description compensates well for the coverage gap.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find substitute filament materials when your preferred material is unavailable (returns ranked list).' It specifies the verb (find), resource (substitute filament materials), and context (when unavailable). Additionally, it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_best_material_substitute' by noting it returns a ranked list versus a single best match, satisfying the distinction requirement.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (when preferred material is unavailable) and explicitly mentions an alternative tool for a single best match. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other possible alternatives. The guidance is sufficient but lacks thorough exclusion criteria.

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