material_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the return shape, including nullable material and appearance fields, plus occurrence override behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior when the target is invalid.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the return shape and a compact example. Every sentence contributes useful information with 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 simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers target types, occurrence semantics, and return structure. It is nearly complete, though it could mention error behavior or explicitly note that the tool is read-only.

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 already documents the single target parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that an occurrence target reports its component's material and its own appearance override, and it gives a concrete example.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving physical material and appearance for a body, component, or occurrence. It clearly distinguishes the target types and explains the occurrence case, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like material_list, material_assign, or appearance_list.

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?

Usage is implied by the example and by clarifying what an occurrence reports, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus material_list, material_assign, or appearance_list. It also provides no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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