mat_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by specifying the exact set of data returned and warning about the StandardMaterial diffuse behavior under PBR lighting, which helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the tool's core behavior, then lists returned fields, then gives the material-type caveat. The bilingual duplication is justified by the audience, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining the return values. It does this thoroughly by enumerating all material properties and map slot details, and it also explains the material-type caveat. The description is complete for a read-only tool with one input parameter.

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 schema fully describes the material parameter as a string name, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by pointing to mat_list as the source of valid material names, which helps the agent supply a correct parameter value.

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 (read) and resource (a material), then enumerates exactly what will be returned: class, diffuse/specular/roughness/metallic/IOR/opacity/emission, and every map slot. It also ties the material name to mat_list, which helps distinguish it from object-based material tools like mat_get_for_object.

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 gives clear usage context: call it with a material name, and names can be discovered via mat_list. It does not explicitly contrast this with mat_get_for_object or other material tools, but the 'names come from mat_list' instruction is a practical and clear prerequisite.

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