lights_on

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes 'Same auto-acquire and no-op-safe behavior as set_function,' indicating it may auto-acquire a throttle and is safe to call even if lights are already on. However, it does not elaborate on what auto-acquire entails or any error conditions, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.

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 compact, consisting of two main sentences plus a parenthetical note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently covers key points without superfluous text.

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 simple single-parameter interface and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral traits adequately. It could be more complete by clarifying terms like 'auto-acquire' or mentioning return values, but for its simplicity it is largely sufficient.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'address' parameter (e.g., that it refers to a locomotive number). The context implies it, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it turns on a headlight, explicitly names it as a shortcut for set_function(address, 0, True), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like lights_off and set_function. The F0 convention is mentioned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises using this tool for plain 'turn the lights on' voice requests without asking for a function number, implying it is for when no specific function number is needed. It implicitly differentiates from set_function but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the mention of set_function.

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