light-report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal that omitting the parameter reports all scene lights, which is a key behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only or non-destructive operation, nor does it describe any side effects or output format, leaving a moderate gap.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. Both clauses are essential: the primary action and the default behavior. It is front-loaded with the action verb and maintains clarity, making it perfectly concise.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It conveys the core functionality but omits details about what 'report' returns, how errors are handled, or whether it works only on selected lights. Given the presence of many sibling report tools, a bit more context would help, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 parameter 'light' is only defined by its title and default in the schema, with 0% coverage from the description. The description adds meaning by explaining that omission triggers reporting all lights, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the valid values or behavior for invalid names, so it only partially compensates.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource 'light(s)', and specifies the scope: one light or all if omitted. It distinguishes implicitly from lighting creation/modification tools but does not explicitly differentiate from similar report tools like light-list or particles-report, so not a full 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like light-list or other report tools. The description only explains the parameter behavior, not the context or exclusions, so it fails to help the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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