material_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains the return fields, the pagination-related total/truncated values, and the important caveat that names are localized and non-unique. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read-only listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 tool’s purpose, then compactly covers return shape, the non-unique-name caveat, and an example. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is 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?

The description compensates for the absence of an output schema by documenting the returned object shape and pagination indicators, and it calls out the localized/non-unique name behavior. It is nearly complete for a listing tool, though it could more explicitly route agents to material_list_libraries or material_get in related workflows.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, query, offset, library, and in_design. The description reinforces the scoping semantics and adds a concrete example, but it does not add much parameter syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states that this tool lists physical materials and specifies the three scoping modes: one library, all libraries by default, or the active design via in_design=true. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with material_get or material_list_libraries, but it does identify material_assign as the downstream action for using returned ids.

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?

It gives clear operational context: omit library to search all libraries, set library to search one, set in_design=true to search the active design, and pass the returned id to material_assign. It does not explicitly state when to prefer material_list_libraries or material_get instead, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/alternative routing statement.

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