get_material_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds specific behavioral detail by listing exactly which settings are retrieved (base color, metallic, roughness) and that it returns a 'node tree summary' rather than the full tree, which clarifies the scope of the operation.

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 a single sentence, begins with the action verb, and lists the key returned fields without extraneous information. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function.

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?

This is a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema available. The description covers the main purpose and the key fields returned, which is sufficient given the low complexity and the existence of an output schema. It doesn't explain error cases or prerequisites, but these are less critical for a read-only getter.

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 has one required parameter 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter, so there is no explicit statement that it refers to the material's name. The connection is only implied by the tool name. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and clearly specifies the resource ('material settings') followed by the specific fields returned (base color, metallic, roughness, node tree summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_material_property (which sets) and get_node_tree (which returns the full node tree, not just a summary).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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