shadow_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying that it inspects shadow maps and lists the type of information returned (global settings, per-light config, objects). However, it does not disclose potential side effects or limitations beyond what the annotations provide.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with 'Inspect shadow maps'. Every part is relevant and adds value, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the high-level output (global settings, per-light config, cast/receive objects). It is complete enough for a simple inspection tool, though it could be more structured about the return format.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining what the tool outputs, compensating for the lack of parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that standard.

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 states the tool's purpose by specifying the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'shadow maps', listing specific aspects like global settings, per-light shadow config, and cast/receive objects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like light_details or material_details. However, it could be more explicit about what 'global settings' entails.

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 implies usage for inspecting shadow-related settings but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like object_details or set_shadow. No exclusions or specific contexts are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer its applicability.

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