get_light_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not confirm that the operation is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The description lacks transparency about what the tool returns or any potential errors.

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 brief, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a structured Args block. No extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with one parameter, the description covers the core functionality. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or invalid input behavior, but overall it is reasonably 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?

The single parameter 'light_names' is thoroughly explained: it is optional, listed with example values, and its behavior when omitted is described. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definition. Schema coverage is 0% but the description fully compensates.

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 'Get the current status of all (or specified) lights', specifying the verb (get), resource (light status), and scope (all or specific). Among sibling tools that are mostly mutative or alert-based, this read-only query is distinct and unambiguous.

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 explains when to specify light names vs not, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternative read tools or when not to use it. The context of sibling names implies it's for reading status, but no direct usage guidelines are given.

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