colored_luminaire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It clearly states the tool writes a new file, never edits the input, writes to a client-roots-aware work_dir, leaves rad_path untouched, returns an absolute path, and returns {file, rad}. This is strong transparency for a side-effecting file-generation tool.

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 compact and information-dense, front-loading the core action and safety guarantee ('writing a NEW file (never edits the input)') before parameter specifics. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful information with minimal redundancy.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the main behavioral contract, output location, return value, and input flexibility. Minor gaps remain around optional parameter defaults (name, work_dir) and the exact structure of channels9, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives useful semantics for count ('0=blue,1=green,2=red third of 9 values'), rad_path ('.rad file path or raw .rad text'), and implicitly name/work_dir via '<name>.rad' and 'work_dir'. However, channels9 is only loosely described as a 'channel triplet' and '9 values', leaving some ambiguity about its exact contents and ordering.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inject a channel triplet into a luminaire .rad', and immediately clarifies the key distinction that it writes a NEW file rather than editing the input. This clearly separates it from generic material or radiance writing tools and makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. While the description explains mechanics like rad_path accepting file paths or raw text, it does not state a use case or differentiate against sibling tools such as write_material or colored_sky.

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