get_material_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Return detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, expected output structure, or any limitations. The lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about what 'detailed' includes.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, which is appropriately sized. It front-loads the verb and resource. The only minor issue is that it is so brief it borders on under-specification, but for a getter with one parameter, it is acceptably concise.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the tool is for retrieving 'detailed information,' and the description does not hint at what that information includes (e.g., node list, parameters, connections). It also lacks any guidance on failure cases or expected input format, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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%, and the parameter material_name has only a title with no type or definition. The description does not explain what 'material_name' refers to (e.g., exact name, identifier, or path), nor does it provide any hints about its format. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's emptiness.

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 retrieves detailed information about a material's node tree, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_shader_node_tree or get_gn_node_tree, which target other node tree types, so an agent can differentiate it.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without context on when it is appropriate, unlike better descriptions that mention alternatives or conditions.

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