shadow_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. What it does add is the inventory of what the read returns (global vs per-light settings, casters/receivers), though it omits any caveats such as needing shadows enabled or how it handles lights without shadow maps.

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?

Two short lines: a bracketed mode tag, then a colon-delimited list of covered aspects. The inspection/read-only constraint is front-loaded 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of signaling what comes back, and it does so by naming the four shadow-map aspects. It stops short of describing the return structure or units, but is adequate for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the shape of the result, which is reasonable for a no-arg inspector.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Shadow maps' inspection) and enumerates the returned scope: global settings, per-light bias/mapSize/camera frustum, casters and receivers. The '[INSPECT] Read-only' tag plus the 'details' naming cleanly separates it from the sibling set_shadow mutation tool.

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 '[INSPECT]' prefix implies this is a diagnostic read tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to set_shadow as the mutation counterpart. An agent can infer usage from the tag but must supply the routing logic itself.

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