material.inspect_nodes

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

The description adds maturity L3 and explicitly reminds that per-request argument checks and session policy still apply, which is context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations. It aligns with the annotation set and does not add details contradict them.

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 prose is tight, readable, and front-loaded with the command identity and risk metadata. It is appropriately short but strips out nearly all functional content, so its brevity sacrifices real guidance.

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 with an output schema and a rich annotation set, the description does not explain the tool's core purpose or the meaning of the required material argument. An agent still has to guess what `inspect_nodes` is for and how it integrates with the other material tools, making this incomplete for safe selection and invocation.

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 main user-facing `material` parameter is not described in the JSON schema, and the description does not clarify whether it expects a material name, object path, or identifier. The other reserved parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description adds no semantic value for the parameter that an agent must fill in.

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 only restates the command name `material.inspect_nodes` and adds risk metadata; it never explicitly says the tool inspects a material's node tree or what information it provides. An agent must infer the behavior from the name and title rather than from a clear statement of purpose.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over related alternatives like blender_material_assign or other domain-specific inspect tools. The note about per-request checks and session policy is invocation constraint, not usage guidance, so there is no when/when-not direction.

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