describe_workbench_material

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the data source (an installed XML file) and a real constraint (xml_path must live in an allowed folder), which implies a read-only lookup. It omits failure behavior for unmatched queries and does not state permissions or whether a caller could point at an arbitrary path.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and compact, but the trailing "Args: query, xml_path (optional)" line restates the schema's own property names and default without adding meaning, so it does not fully earn its place. The parenthetical source reference is similarly crammed mid-sentence.

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, and the description covers what the lookup returns conceptually plus both inputs and the path constraint. For a two-parameter read-only lookup this is close to sufficient, with only unmatched-query and permissions behavior left open.

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 carry all parameter meaning, and it mostly does: query is matched against the card name with two concrete example formats, and xml_path is marked optional with a folder-restriction rule. It stops short of stating whether xml_path is an override for the default installed XML.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it describes which *MAT/*EOS cards Workbench can write and how fields map to Engineering Data, sourced from the installed LSDYNASolverRepresentation.xml. That is far more concrete than its siblings describe_keyword/build_keyword (LS-DYNA deck side) but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them, leaving the Workbench-vs-deck split implicit.

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 gives a concrete usage hint via query examples ("JOHNSON_COOK" or "*MAT_ELASTIC") and a constraint on xml_path (must be inside an allowed folder). It does not say when to reach for this instead of describe_keyword or search_lsdyna_help, nor what to do if the query returns nothing.

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