lightprobe.report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lacks disclosure of side effects, read-only behavior, error handling, or authentication needs. The term 'live RNA properties' hints at real-time data but is ambiguous.

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?

One sentence, no filler, efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or any behavioral nuances. Adequate for a simple report but could be more informative.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the single required parameter 'name'. However, the schema's title 'Light probe object name' provides basic clarity, and the description adds no extra semantic value. Given low coverage, it should compensate more.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'reports live RNA properties for a light probe', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lightprobe.create, lightprobe.list, and lightprobe.set by focusing on reading properties.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lightprobe.set, lightprobe.create). Usage is implied for retrieving properties, but there is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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