catia_list_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the default catalogue behavior, but does not disclose return format or behavior when the path is invalid or no materials match.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies default behavior. Every word 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 simple read-only listing tool with zero required parameters and fully documented optional parameters, the description is largely complete. It could mention the output shape explicitly since there is no output schema, but the phrase 'List the materials' adequately implies the return value.

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 both parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description's path note essentially duplicates the catalog_path schema description ('Empty uses the default'), so it adds no substantial new parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'List the materials available in a CATIA material catalogue.' This clearly distinguishes it from other list tools like catia_list_components or catia_list_bodies.

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 provides useful default-path context ('With no path, the standard catalogue shipped with the detected CATIA installation is used'), which helps in typical usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternative material-related tools like catia_apply_material, nor does it state exclusions.

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