get_material_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that only material-path parameters are scanned under /obj and /stage, that cost is independent of scene size (flat on a 4,000-node scene), and that assignment_scan reports node count visited. That is substantive behavioral context. It stops short of stating whether the call is read-only or what error conditions exist.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact but high-value paragraph on scan semantics, then an Args block. Slight waste: ctx is documented in the description but not present in the input schema, and 'detailed information' is left vague.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should characterize the return value. It hints at two return keys (assignments, assignment_scan) but never enumerates the material detail fields an agent would actually receive, which is the central payload of a 'get ... info' tool.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: 'node_path: Absolute path to the material node' supplies the required path form, which the schema's bare 'Node Path' string does not. It also documents an out-of-schema ctx argument, though it does not explain the expected path prefix syntax.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get detailed information about a material node.' That is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_node_info, list_materials, get_usd_materials, or get_usd_bound_material, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the many material- and node-info siblings. The 'assignments' paragraph implies the tool answers 'which nodes reference this material', but the caller has to infer that this is the reason to pick it over list_materials or get_node_info.

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