list_lights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., list of light paths or objects), error handling, or what 'all' means in a multi-layer stage. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the main purpose. It wastes no words and is structured clearly with an Args section. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices needed context.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, whether it includes properties or just paths, or any caveats about node validity. An agent would struggle to consume the result reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'node_path: LOP node path', which gives a basic meaning beyond the schema's bare type, but it lacks detail about path format, validity, or default behavior. This is a marginal improvement over the schema.

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 ('List'), resource ('USD lights'), and scope ('on a LOP stage'). It clearly distinguishes this from generic list tools like list_usd_prims by specifying 'lights' and the stage context.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to other light-related tools like create_light or list_usd_prims. The agent must infer its niche.

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