list_lights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: it does not depend on the UsdLux.Light base class, returns a capability warning when the API is missing, passes the response through server-side apply_response_cap, and notes NO_UNDO. These details go beyond a basic description and alert the agent to potential limitations or side effects.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose of light recognition. It packs a lot of technical detail into two sentences, and each sentence adds value. However, the heavy use of USD-specific jargon (UsdLux.LightAPI, schema IsA) may reduce clarity for agents not deeply familiar with USD, but it is still concise and to the point.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It omits parameter explanations, return value format, and any usage examples. The mention of apply_response_cap and NO_UNDO hints at behavior but does not clarify the expected output or how to interpret results, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 has zero description coverage for its three parameters (ctx, node_path, max_lights), and the description does not explain any of them. The tool description focuses entirely on detection logic and response handling, leaving parameter meanings to be inferred from the tool name and context. This is a critical gap for a tool that requires two mandatory parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as light recognition (灯光识别) and details the identification strategy (UsdLux.LightAPI then schema IsA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_usd_prims by focusing specifically on lights. However, it does not explicitly say that it returns a list of lights, which is the implied outcome.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the internal algorithm and does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions for preferring list_lights over other listing tools.

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