get_light

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — case- and accent-insensitive matching — but says nothing about precedence when both identifiers are supplied, behavior when neither is given, or what happens on a miss.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the matching rule appended where it is immediately useful. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description needn't explain return values. The remaining gap is modest but real: for a two-optional-parameter lookup tool, the resolution order and empty-input behavior should be stated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does partially: it maps "by id" and "by name" onto light_id and light_name and explains the case/accent-insensitive matching rule. It leaves the bigger ambiguities unaddressed — both parameters are optional with empty-string defaults, and the description does not state which one wins or what an empty call returns.

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?

"Get one light, by id or by name" gives a specific verb and resource and signals single-item retrieval, which distinguishes it from get_all_lights. It does not, however, distinguish it from the sibling find_light_by_name, which appears to cover overlapping lookup-by-name behavior.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-light fetch versus the list tools, but the description never says when to prefer it over find_light_by_name or what to do if a lookup fails. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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