list_lights

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

No annotations are present, and the description uses the inherently read-only verb 'list' but does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, whether hidden/disabled lights are included, or any ordering or units. The core behavior is clear, but deeper behavioral guarantees are not disclosed.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, scope, and output content efficiently.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description states the resource and the three categories of returned data, which is largely sufficient. It omits possibly useful details such as units or inclusion of hidden lights, but the tool's simplicity keeps this gap minor.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema captures this completely. The description still adds the output fields (types, positions, energy values) that the schema cannot, aligning with the zero-parameter baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List all lights in the scene') and enumerates the returned data fields, making it clearly distinct from light-creation/configuration siblings like create_light and configure_light.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is given. The clearest implied usage is 'when you need a read-only inventory of lights,' but it does not say to prefer this over list_objects or exclude setup_* tools.

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