set_light

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing beyond the action itself. It doesn't state whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires the printer to be idle, what it returns, or any permission requirements. For a simple state-set tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is still essentially absent.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing context noted elsewhere.

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 low-complexity two-parameter toggle with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't explain the effect of omitting printer_id, return behavior, or whether the set persists, leaving small but real gaps.

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 50%: printer_id is documented in the schema, while 'on' has no schema description. The description's phrase 'on or off' implicitly maps to the boolean 'on' parameter, partially compensating, and printer_id's optionality is covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('turn on or off') and resource ('work light'), making the operation immediately clear. No sibling tool controls lighting, so no differentiation is strictly needed, but the description also doesn't mention scope (per-printer vs global), which the printer_id parameter implies.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description only restates the action; an agent gets no help deciding context such as whether the light can be toggled during an active print.

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