protect_get_light

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

The description implies a read operation by saying 'get', but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose any rate limits, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description should provide more 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 short but includes a redundant argument description that repeats the parameter name. It could be more concise while still being clear.

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 get tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes.

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_id' is described only as 'The light ID', which adds negligible meaning beyond the schema's type and title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('get') and the resource ('specific Protect light'), making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'get' tools like protect_get_camera or protect_get_sensor beyond the resource name, which is already implied by the tool name.

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 versus alternatives such as protect_list_lights or protect_update_light. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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