get_material_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and adds useful behavior: only material-path parameters are read and cost is scene-size-independent; assignment_scan reports visited nodes. It does not cover error behavior or the full return payload, but the read-only constant-cost trait is meaningful.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear summary, then a dense but relevant paragraph on assignments and cost, then an Args block. No filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers invocation and a key return field (assignments) plus runtime cost behavior. It remains incomplete about what other 'detailed information' is returned and what happens on bad paths, so the agent must infer the rest.

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 schema provides only a title and 0% description coverage, so the description's 'Absolute path to the material node' is the only real semantic documentation for node_path. It clarifies path format adequately for a single-parameter tool.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a material node'). It doesn't name sibling tools like get_node_info or list_materials to differentiate it, but the object and scope are clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as get_node_info, list_materials, or get_usd_materials is provided. The description implies the use case—material-specific information and assignments—but never states exclusions or alternatives.

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