list_library_materials

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), yet the description adds the non-obvious operational trait that the first call of a session loads the library and takes several seconds, plus that query matching is server-side and case-insensitive. That is real added context beyond structured fields, though nothing is said about how 'limit' truncates the ~1 000 results.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and cardinality, then each parameter's semantics, then the one-time latency warning. Every sentence contributes a distinct, actionable fact 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the latency and filtering behaviors are covered. The only missing piece an agent would want is what 'limit' does relative to the ~1 000-item library.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it explains that 'filter' is a library folder that must be prefixed with 'Materials/' (with concrete examples) and that omitting the prefix yields zero results, and that 'query' is a case-insensitive server-side substring match. The third parameter, 'limit' (default 300), is never mentioned, leaving a gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Matériaux de la bibliothèque KeyShot') and even the corpus size (~1 000 items), so the agent knows this enumerates the stock library rather than scene materials. It never names its closest sibling (list_materials), so the distinction from scene-level material listing must be inferred from the word 'bibliothèque'.

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 filter semantics ('Materials/Metal', 'Materials/Plastic'), which tell the agent the intended browsing pattern, and the warning that an unprefixed filter returns nothing is a genuine usage constraint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement versus list_materials or get_material.

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