get_recent_materializations

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

There are no annotations to rely on. The description correctly implies a read-only operation via 'get', and details the return structure, but does not explicitly state that it performs no side effects or require specific permissions. Additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits are not addressed.

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 with a clear purpose statement, followed by return field details, parameter descriptions, and usage guidance. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and 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?

The description is comprehensive for a read-only list tool: purpose, return structure, two parameters, and usage guidance. However, it omits the env parameter and does not explain how the tool relates to other sibling tools like get_asset_details. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for extensive return value documentation, but the missing env param is a notable gap.

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 description covers two of three parameters (asset_key with example, limit with default), but omits the env parameter entirely. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but the omission of env is a 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 opens with a clear statement: 'Get the most recent materializations for an asset, with metadata.' It further specifies the fields returned, distinguishing the tool from the sibling get_asset_health which is for broader health.

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 includes a dedicated 'When to use' section that lists specific use cases (check last materialization, track frequency, inspect metadata) and explicitly recommends get_asset_health for a broader view, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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