get_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses that the tool returns the material set via set_material, not a live sensor reading. It transparently indicates the source and behavior, though it does not cover potential error conditions or rate limits.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and efficiently structured. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the return value note, the alternative tool reference, and the parameter documentation.

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 simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter usage, and suggests an alternative. It is mostly complete, but lacks detail on the return structure or format, which could be inferred but is not explicit.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for the printer_name parameter, specifying it targets a printer and defaults if omitted. This fully covers the single parameter.

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 gets material loaded in a printer from Kiln's software tracker, distinguishing it from get_active_material for live AMS hardware reading. The verb+resource is specific, and the sibling differentiation is explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_active_material for live hardware reading. It also explains the printer_name parameter usage, though it lacks explicit exclusions for cases where the tool should not be used.

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