lighting_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation behavior, the output fields for both modes, the role of weights, and the effect of workbook_compat. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a pure calculator this is less critical. The mention of verification and regression adds transparency.

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 dense and information-rich, with a clear lead statement about the tool's purpose and modes. It uses colons and examples to structure information efficiently. While it is longer than a typical description, every sentence carries meaningful information, and the structure makes it scannable.

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?

The tool is complex with 12 parameters and no output schema provided. The description covers the primary usage modes and output fields, but it does not explain all parameters or provide units or defaults beyond what is in the schema (which is minimal). Given the complexity and lack of schema coverage, more detail would be needed for full completeness, but the description is adequate for the main use cases.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains itot_per_point, itot_series, weights, control_type, and workbook_compat, but omits area, iset, fL_min, fP_min, n_steps, p_rated, and schedule. Some may be inferable from context (e.g., area is needed for annual mode), but several remain unexplained. The description adds value for the key parameters but does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 is a 'Daylight-responsive lighting-control calculator' with a specific reference (EnergyPlus §7.3.5) and verification. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a calculation tool, not a status or validation tool. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides explicit usage modes: point-in-time and annual/series, with instructions on which inputs to pass for each. It explains the meaning of 'weights' and 'control_type' and mentions 'workbook_compat' for regression. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like lm83_daylight or annual_daylight, though the mode-specific instructions give strong contextual guidance.

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