lux_functions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: data is read from the running KeyShot instance (implying KeyShot must be live), and detail=true expands to full docs plus class methods.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose first, then the detail flag, then the use case. No filler; only mild terseness in the module mention.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and two of three parameters are covered in prose. What remains underspecified is what 'query' accepts (signature? name? wildcard?), which matters for a lookup tool.

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 carry parameter meaning; it explains module ('lux' or 'luxmath') and detail=true (full documentation and class methods). The primary 'query' parameter is never explained, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a clear verb-resource pair: introspecting the KeyShot scripting API (functions, classes, constants) from the live 'lux'/'luxmath' modules. It is distinguishable from execute_python by framing itself as a signature-lookup tool, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 final sentence ('Sert à vérifier une signature avant de s'en servir') gives a concrete use condition: consult before calling an API. No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the intended context relative to script execution is clear.

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