list_lights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that no changes occur or that it operates on the current scene. The lack of explicit safety guarantees is a gap.

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 a single, brief sentence that directly communicates the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, containing no redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 listing tool, the description is adequate, but it lacks any context about the output format or scope (e.g., all lights in the scene). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, yet the description still feels minimal given the existence of many related tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-related meaning, but the baseline for high schema coverage applies, making a score of 3 appropriate.

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 action 'list' and the resource 'lights', mentioning parameters as part of the output. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_cameras or list_materials, the resource name is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as get_light_info or create_light. The description gives no context about filtering, scene scope, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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