ies_analyze

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 states the output but does not mention side effects, error handling, whether the operation is read-only, or limitations (e.g., invalid IES handling). It does not contradict any annotations (none exist), but it falls short of disclosing key behavioral traits.

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, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and output list, followed by a clear parameter explanation. There is no wasted wording; every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (indicated as true), the description need not detail return values beyond the enumerated fields, which it already lists. It also explains the input parameter format. However, it omits any mention of error conditions or prerequisites, and lacks sibling differentiation, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the parameter 'ies' as 'raw IES text or a file path', which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type. This clarifies the accepted input formats, making the tool more usable.

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 verb 'parse' and the resource 'IESNA LM-63 luminaire', and enumerates the specific fields returned (rated lumens, watts, efficacy, max candela + location, beam/field angles, zonal flux down/up, LOR). This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like ies_to_radiance (which converts to radiance) or validate (which checks validity).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ies_to_radiance or validate. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios. The only implied usage is when a photometric report is needed, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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