Get Recent Materializations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (runId, timestamp, assetKey, metadataEntries) but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for missing assets, or pagination. For an un-annotated read tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then structures return fields, parameter notes, and usage guidance as distinct blocks. Every line earns its place and the alternative tool is placed at the end where it belongs.

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 the description's return-value detail is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the when-to-use guidance is thorough. The one gap is the undocumented env parameter, which leaves an agent guessing about environment scoping.

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 documents asset_key with a concrete example and explains limit's meaning, which is genuinely helpful, but the third parameter env is left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('get the most recent materializations for an asset') with clear scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_asset_health. An agent can tell what it returns (a list of materializations) without opening the schema.

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?

Includes an explicit 'When to use' section listing three concrete scenarios (last materialization time, frequency tracking, metadata inspection) and names the alternative get_asset_health for a broader health view. Routing is unambiguous.

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