get_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states what data is returned but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. For a retrieval tool this is a notable omission, as the agent cannot confirm the operation is safe without annotations or explicit wording.

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 short—a single noun phrase. It is concise but structurally incomplete as a conventional sentence. It does front-load the key returned data, but the lack of a verb and any additional context makes it feel underspecified rather than efficiently complete.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It lists return contents but omits purpose of each parameter, behavioral guarantees, and any relation to sibling tools. Given the tool's simple getter nature and two parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently in varied contexts.

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 50% (only include_nodes has a description). The description adds no parameter-level meaning; it does not mention 'name' or 'include_nodes' at all. Since coverage is not high, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a material) and the specific data returned (Principled BSDF values, render settings, users). Although it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'get_material' combined with this noun-phrase description leaves little ambiguity. It also differentiates from siblings like get_material_nodes (which focuses on the node graph) and list_materials (which only lists materials).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_material_nodes or list_materials. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The intended use must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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