get_material_warnings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses that Kiln Pro is required. It does not describe the tool's read-only nature, return format, permissions needed, or what kinds of warnings are produced. The tier requirement is a small behavioral disclosure, but most behavioral traits are missing.

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 useful purpose statement is front-loaded, but the second paragraph is purely promotional marketing (Free vs Pro features, upgrade URL) that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. This irrelevant content dilutes the definition.

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 a simple two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely lacking: it does not explain what warnings are returned, how to interpret them, or any other context needed for correct invocation. The plan requirement alone is insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the two parameters (material, printer_id) at all. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to infer expected formats, valid values, or relationships.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: get warnings about printing a specific material on a printer. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (warnings), and the scope is distinct enough from siblings like get_material_properties or check_printer_material_support. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites beyond the plan requirement. The second paragraph is a marketing upsell that adds no usage context.

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