listMaterials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'List all Materials' fails to describe any behavioral aspects such as pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance considerations, or error handling. It provides no insight into how the tool operates beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's action, though it lacks depth. This efficiency in length is optimal for minimal descriptions.

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 the complexity of a listing tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Materials' are, how results are structured, or behavioral traits like pagination. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for effective tool use is insufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (filters, limit, offset, parentId). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'List all Materials' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates a listing operation on Materials, it lacks specificity about what 'Materials' are in this domain or how this differs from similar tools like 'getMaterials' or 'listBlendShapes' among the siblings. It provides minimal value beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'getMaterials', 'listBlendShapes', and 'query', there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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