list_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds pagination behavior and permanent-material scope, but does not disclose ordering, default page-size semantics, or any access/auth requirements.

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, compact sentence with no filler, and the core action and resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation.

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 an output schema present, return value documentation is not necessary. However, input semantics remain thin: an agent cannot determine valid material_type values, pagination bounds, or any special behaviors from the description. The definition is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It implies that material_type selects the resource type and that count/offset drive pagination, but it provides no valid type values, constraints, or additional meaning beyond the schema's field names and defaults.

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 states a specific verb ('paginated list') and a specific resource ('permanent materials of a specified type'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as get_material, count_materials, list_drafts, and list_published. Even without a title, the purpose is immediately apparent.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need a paginated listing of permanent materials filtered by type. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use get_material for a single item' or 'use count_materials for totals.'

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