ies_to_radiance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that user scaling (multiplier * maintenance_factor) is separate from ies2rad's internal candela/ballast/pfactor application, and that execution is conditional on Radiance presence. These are valuable behavioral details.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a focused note on scaling behavior. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Despite an output schema, the description leaves most parameter semantics and operational details (e.g., placement structure, default behaviors, output format) unexplained. For an 11-parameter tool, this is a significant gap that an agent must resolve by trial or external knowledge.

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?

Only multiplier and maintenance_factor are explained through the scaling note; the other nine parameters (ies, run, lamp, color, units, work_dir, placement, out_prefix, units_divisor) are left undocumented. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 states a specific conversion action: converting an IES luminaire to a Radiance .rad via ies2rad, with optional xform placement. It is clear and distinct from siblings like ies_analyze, 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 use for IES-to-Radiance conversion but does not contrast with other tools. It does provide a conditional execution note (runs ies2rad if Radiance is present, else returns commands), which guides expectations but not tool selection.

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