get_light

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the kinds of information returned (state, attributes, capabilities). However, it does not mention error behavior, side effects (none expected), or any access requirements; for a simple read operation this is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the argument guidance is compactly appended.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it identifies what the tool returns and how to resolve the one argument. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from calling it successfully.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully for the single parameter: it specifies that light_id is a numeric ID and explicitly points to list_lights for discovery. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema definition (type string, title 'Light Id').

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('a specific light'), and the scope of the response ('full details including state, attributes, and capabilities'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_lights (collection) and mutation siblings like set_light_state.

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?

It tells the agent how to obtain the required light_id via list_lights, which is practical guidance for using this tool correctly. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but for a single-item read operation the context is clear enough.

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