scene_show_lights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's safe and read-only, returns detailed light data, and includes important clarifications about color modes and what not to report. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return details. Slightly verbose in listing return fields, but every sentence adds value (e.g., clarifying color modes).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by detailing return values and behavioral context. It covers the tool's purpose, usage, and output semantics adequately, though it could benefit from mentioning any prerequisites or error scenarios.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'filter' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('Shows ALL Home Assistant lights with FULL details'), the resource ('lights'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's read-only and for viewing states rather than modifying scenes or lights like scene_adjust_light or scene_activate.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use this to answer questions about light states, colors, brightness') and when not to use ('Does NOT change anything'), with clear context for querying light information versus other scene-related tools that modify or configure scenes.

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