eda_pcb_ray_tracer_engine_get_light_configurations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires the ray tracer engine to be initialized first, or any side effects. The only behavioral clue is the 'get' in the name, which implies read-only but is not explicitly disclosed.

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, but that is due to under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It mixes code syntax and Chinese text without clear structure or separation of concerns. Every sentence could be more informative, and there is no organized presentation.

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 within a ray tracer engine domain, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain the return format (beyond '光源配置' meaning 'light source configuration'), the nature of the parameter, or how this tool fits with sibling ray tracer tools. An agent would be guessing on how to call it correctly.

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 description includes the signature 'lightName: string' which at least names the parameter, but it does not explain what a light name is, what valid values look like, or whether it is required. The input schema only shows a generic 'args' array with a generic description, leaving the actual semantics of lightName undefined. The description adds minimal value beyond 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 merely restates the tool name in code form ('pcb_RayTracerEngine.getLightConfigurations') and its Chinese translation '获取光线追踪光源配置' (get ray tracing light source configuration). It provides no elaboration on what light configurations are, how they differ from render configurations, or any concrete use case. This is essentially a tautology.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as eda_pcb_ray_tracer_engine_get_render_configurations or set_render_configurations. No context, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided.

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