get_light

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' conveys a read-only operation, but the description does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, or what happens when the light ID is invalid. For a simple getter this is minimally adequate, but it leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter details are separated clearly. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. The description covers both required parameters, gives the composite ID format for host, and tells the agent exactly where to get light_id. For a straightforward single-resource getter, nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must document the parameters, and it does so thoroughly. It explains host as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)' and light_id as required and sourced from list_lights, which is exactly the semantic information the schema lacks.

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 and resource: 'Get details for a single Protect light by ID.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_lights (list all) and update_light (modify), and 'single ... by ID' removes ambiguity about scope.

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 gives clear workflow context by saying light_id should be obtained from list_lights, which implicitly tells the agent to call list_lights first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the 'single ... by ID' phrasing supplies enough context for correct selection.

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