rhino_material_preset_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile with a lower bar for the description. The description adds value beyond that: presets are 'bundled with rhino-mcp' (built-in, known-good names) and the return shape is the full catalogue or a category subset. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: verb+resource scope is front-loaded, followed by return behavior and purpose tied to the create tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent list tool with an output schema, the description covers what is listed, how the optional category filters it, and when to call it. The only parameter's valid values live in the schema, and annotations handle the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 meaningful parameter, category, has a thorough schema description enumerating all eight valid values (stone, metal, glass, wood, plaster, fabric, polymer, landscape), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'full catalogue (or a single category subset)' mirrors that semantic without adding the value list, contributing marginal meaning. Together they are complete, but the description itself adds little beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'List physical-material presets bundled with rhino-mcp.' The description then clarifies scope by distinguishing full-catalogue vs. single-category-subset output, and frames it as a lookup step for rhino_material_preset_create. An agent can clearly tell this apart from the many material-related sibling tools (create, assign, layer_set_material).

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 states the canonical use case: call this to 'pick a known-good name before calling rhino_material_preset_create.' This is clear contextual guidance for when the tool fits into a workflow. However, it does not name when-not conditions or alternatives (e.g., using rhino_material_create for fully custom materials), so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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