get_material

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior not in annotations: the editable flag only applies to bridge-created copies, and color values are read in linear 0-1 space.

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 return structure and then supplies useful type-code context. It is dense but efficient, with no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, but the description still usefully explains the graph shape, editable semantics, and type mappings. The main remaining gap is that the input material parameter is not described, so an agent may know what comes back but not exactly how to request it.

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 0% for the sole material parameter. The description says it retrieves a scene material's graph but does not explain how to identify the material, such as by name, id, or path, so it does not compensate for the missing 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 names a specific resource, the graph of a scene material, and details the returned nodes, parameters, and input_from links. It is clearly distinct from list_materials and material-editing siblings because it describes a single material's graph structure.

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 only implied: the editable flag and the note that only bridge-created copies can be edited in the graph suggest this tool is for inspecting editable material graphs. There is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus list_materials or set_material_parameter.

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