lightprobe-report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires specific object states, or what 'live' means (e.g., real-time updates). The verb 'report' suggests read-only, but this is not explicit.

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, concise and to the point. It is brief but not overly vague, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. However, it lacks details about what 'live RNA properties' includes (e.g., specific fields like location, rotation, scale) and how to interpret the report. The absence of any output schema makes this more pressing.

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 schema has one parameter 'name' with a title 'Light probe object name', but no description. Because schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it only says 'for a light probe', which adds minimal meaning beyond the title. It does not clarify the format or expectations for the name.

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 states the tool reports live RNA properties for a light probe, which clearly identifies the resource (light probe) and the action (report). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lightprobe-set' or 'lightprobe-list', but the phrase 'live RNA properties' provides some specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'lightprobe-list' or 'lightprobe-report' (though 'lightprobe-report' itself is unique). The description implies it is for inspecting properties but does not specify scenarios or exclusions.

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