light_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description's one genuinely additive claim is the scope note that sky child lights are included, which is not derivable from structured fields; beyond that it mostly re-lists return fields already present in the output schema.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the scope ('All lights') and then the returned attributes. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a parameterless read with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description is sufficient — the agent knows what it gets and that sky child lights are in scope. A minor gap remains around whether the result is scene-wide or selection-scoped and whether any ordering applies.

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 disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing filter or scope parameters.

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 names the resource (all lights) and enumerates the attributes returned (type, brightness, colour, shadows, shape, transform), making the read intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with light_create or otherwise differentiate from siblings, but the verb-less 'All lights …' framing reads clearly as a listing operation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for lights, with light_create as the obvious write counterpart. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note on whether it spans the whole scene or the current selection, and no named alternative.

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