glare_ugr

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. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'Runs Radiance if present, else returns the commands.' This explains the conditional execution and whether it mutates or returns commands. However, it does not mention side effects like file creation, permissions, or the nature of the output beyond returning commands, which is incomplete for a rendering and analysis 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 concise at two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The delegation detail is somewhat implementation-specific but not excessive. There is no wasted phrasing, and it gets to the core function quickly.

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 has 11 parameters (1 required) and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the output format (even though an output schema exists, it is not referenced), the meaning of UGR/DGP/glare sources, or how to interpret the returned commands vs actual execution. The conditional behavior is mentioned but not elaborated. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional info.

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 by explaining parameters. It only hints at 'daylight and/or electric_lights' which maps to the electric_lights parameter, but it does not explain scene_sets (the only required parameter), glare_params, rad_params, quality, or others. This is a significant gap; the description adds almost no semantic value for parameters.

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 tool renders a fisheye image and runs evalglare to compute UGR/DGP/glare sources. It uses specific verbs ('Render', 'run') and names the resource (fisheye, evalglare). It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_image by noting it delegates with glare=True, implying a specialized glare analysis tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description implies the tool is for glare analysis and mentions it delegates to run_image, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_image or other analysis tools. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions beyond the delegation, so usage guidance is only implied.

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