light_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "Read" signals a non-mutating operation and the parenthetical discloses exactly what state fields come back, plus the extra local-time value. It says nothing about behavior for unknown or offline targets, whether "all" resolves to every light, or any failure modes, which leaves real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then the returned fields, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned state fields and the local-time extra, which is exactly what would otherwise be missing. The remaining gap is the target parameter's accepted format, which is minor but non-trivial given 0% schema coverage.

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%, so the only parameter is undocumented in structured fields. "each target light" hints that target may accept multiple lights and that the default "all" means every light, which adds some meaning, but the accepted format (single name, list, group, room) is never specified.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") with a clear resource (each target light's current state) and even enumerates the returned attributes (on, mode, brightness, temp, rgb). It implicitly separates itself from list_lights and set_light, but never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: "what each target light is doing now" suggests reading state rather than enumerating devices (list_lights) or changing them (set_light). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer routing from the sibling names.

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