list_lights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. It does not state whether the listing is recursive through the stage hierarchy, whether it filters to a specific scope, what the return shape is, or whether it is a safe read-only operation. 'List' implies read-only but that must be inferred.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded with the action and scope. The 'Args:' block restates what the schema already declares about node_path, which is mild waste, but overall the definition is compact.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves key questions open: what the returned light entries contain and whether the listing is stage-wide. With no annotations to fill the safety/behavior gap, it is only minimally adequate.

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 the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying 'LOP node path' adds some meaning beyond the bare 'Node Path' title — it identifies the namespace the path lives in — but provides no format, example, or root-path convention. This is only partial compensation.

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: 'List all USD lights on a LOP stage.' An agent can distinguish this from create_light and set_light_properties. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent read tools like list_usd_prims or list_materials, which a sibling-aware agent might also consider.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a valid LOP stage must exist), and no named alternative. The 'LOP stage' phrasing only weakly implies the context in which it applies.

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