content_material_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and an output schema exists, so the return payload is documented elsewhere. The description's main added value is the word 'live,' which implies a prerequisite that the material be currently loaded in the editor and may fail otherwise, but this constraint is not spelled out with any failure mode or permission detail.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause maps to a distinct category of returned data.

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?

With annotations covering read-only safety and an output schema covering return values, the definition is functional but thin: it never clarifies the 'live' prerequisite's implications or how it relates to content_asset_info for the same asset, leaving an agent to infer those boundaries.

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 100% and the materialId property already documents that it is a FlaxEngine.Material GUID sourced from content_search. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 verb (Returns) and enumerates concrete outputs: typed values, texture references, UV tiling, and exposed parameters for a Material asset. This clearly differentiates it from mutation siblings like content_create_material, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from content_asset_info, which likely also returns asset metadata.

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 scope ('live surface Material asset'), hinting that the material must be loaded in the editor, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling (e.g., content_asset_info) is named as an alternative for non-live inspection.

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