list_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the output (documents and directory) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any prerequisites like fund existence. It does not contradict annotations (none exist) but provides minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose (documents for a fund) and adds the secondary detail (directory location). It is efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description does not mention any special behaviors, edge cases, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the fund must exist, whether the directory is always returned). It is minimal but covers the core purpose.

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 input schema fully documents fund_id with description 'FundsDataSets.ID' (100% coverage). The description does not mention fund_id or add any context about it, so it contributes nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool returns documents already stored for a fund and the location of its Materials directory, which clearly identifies the resource and implies a listing operation. It is distinct from siblings like save_material (which writes) and find_rows (which searches rows). However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', so it could be clearer about the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context such as 'check before saving' or compare to find_rows or get_row. An agent has no explicit criteria for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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