blend-ai

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 adds value by specifying the return format ('List of dicts with light name, type, energy, color, and location'), which clarifies output structure. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description provides some behavioral context but is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second specifies the return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently adds necessary details without fluff.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a read-only listing operation. However, it could benefit from mentioning sibling tools or usage context to fully guide an AI agent in a complex environment with many alternatives.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the return value. For a zero-parameter tool, this meets expectations without redundancy.

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: 'List all light objects in the scene.' This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('light objects'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_objects' or 'list_scenes' beyond the resource type. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling comparison context.

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. There are sibling tools like 'list_objects' and 'get_object_info' that might overlap, but no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations are given. Usage is implied by the purpose statement alone.

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