lightbulb_use_read_capability

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint true. Description adds that server rejects unknown or action-capable targets, reinforcing the read-only contract. No mention of side effects, consistent with readOnlyHint.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff. Efficiently conveys purpose and constraint.

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?

Mentions output? No. There is an output schema but not described. Also no error cases. However, for a simple invocation tool, the description covers the main use case. Some missing details like return format.

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?

Description provides guidance for arguments_json (must match schema from describe) but does not describe the name parameter. Since schema has no descriptions, this partial guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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?

States it invokes a discovered capability annotated as read-only. Clear verb 'Invoke' and resource 'discovered capability'. Distinguishes from sibling lightbulb_use_action_capability by the read-only qualifier.

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?

Implies usage for read-only capabilities by saying 'explicitly annotated as read-only' and 'rejects action-capable targets'. Does not explicitly name the sibling tool for action capabilities, but the contrast is clear. Could be improved with an explicit when-to-use vs lightbulb_use_action_capability.

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