getMaterials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't clarify whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles invalid IDs (e.g., errors vs. partial results), rate limits, or return format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear terminology. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Materials' are in this context (e.g., 3D modeling materials), the return format, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools like listMaterials. For a tool with one parameter but complex domain context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, with the parameter 'ids' documented as 'Material identifiers' in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing 'multiple Materials by IDs', which reinforces the array nature but doesn't provide additional context like ID format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get multiple Materials by IDs' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Materials), and specifies the scope (multiple, by IDs). It distinguishes from listMaterials (which presumably lists all materials) by focusing on retrieval by specific identifiers. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with getProperty or other get* tools that might retrieve different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listMaterials (for listing all materials) or getProperty (for retrieving material properties). It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter alone.

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