list_lighting_settings_assets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a read operation (listing files), but does not specify whether it searches recursively, what paths are returned, or how results are formatted. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 a single sentence that is short, direct, and front-loaded with the key information. Every word is meaningful, and there is no unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on the output format (e.g., full paths, relative paths) and scope (e.g., entire project or specific folder). It is complete enough for a basic list tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but it does provide context on the type of files listed (lighting-related .asset files). This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool lists lighting-related .asset files, specifically calling out LightingSettings and lightmaps. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools that deal with other asset types (materials, audio, etc.). However, it could be more precise about what 'lighting-related' includes beyond the examples.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative list tools. It does not mention prerequisites, filtering, or contrast with similar tools like list_assets_by_extension. The agent is left to infer from the name and brief description.

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