getLayerMaterialOptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does supply useful context about what data the call surfaces (the material/shader property set). However, it says nothing about whether the layer must already be a 3D layer, what happens if the layer is 2D, or permission/error behavior. It is a safe read by implication of 'Get', but no behavior is disclosed beyond that implication.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by a compact enumeration. The parenthetical list is slightly long but it earns its place by substituting for a missing output schema.

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 three-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and the parenthetical enumeration partially compensates for the absent output schema by naming the fields returned. It still lacks any indication of the return structure, error conditions, or 2D-vs-3D precondition, leaving modest gaps.

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% and all three parameters (compName, layerName, layerIndex) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema fully does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('3D material/shader options for a 3D layer'), and the parenthetical enumeration of the option categories (shadows, transmission, ambient, diffuse, specular, metal) concretely scopes what is returned. It is distinguishable from the sibling setLayerMaterialOptions, though the read-vs-write contrast is left implicit rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., 'call this before setLayerMaterialOptions to discover valid values'). The read-only intent of a 'Get' verb is inference, not instruction.

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