anh_sang_moi_truong

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the visual effect and interaction with the SUN source and recommends combining with 'tao_den', but it does not state whether it overwrites existing environment lighting, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects or output to expect.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides practical parameter guidance. It is somewhat verbose in the opening sentence but does not contain wasted repetition.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the core visual purpose and 'cuong_do' semantics. However, it leaves the 'mau' parameter unexplained and does not describe mutation behavior such as replacement or reversibility, so it is not fully complete.

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% for two parameters. The description fully explains 'cuong_do' with concrete values and visual scenarios, which adds meaningful semantics, but it completely omits the 'mau' (color) parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 verb and resource ('Đặt ánh sáng môi trường') and clarifies that the tool acts as the sky casting light into the scene. It also implies a distinction from 'tao_den' by recommending they be used together for clearer lighting, though it does not directly name alternatives to this tool.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: without it, surfaces facing away from the SUN are dark, and it should be called with 'tao_den' for clearer lighting. It also provides scenario-based guidance for 'cuong_do' values (0.5, 1.0, 2.0), though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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