list_lights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the operation (listing) and the scope ('all ... on a Protect console'), but it does not mention pagination, response size, read-only status, or any special conditions. For a simple list operation this is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second clarifies the single parameter's accepted formats. Every sentence is useful and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 list operation, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed, the target scope, and how to identify the host. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, and the remaining gaps are minor usage/behavior details.

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 schema only defines host as a required string with no description, so the extra line 'host: console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)' adds meaningful format guidance. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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-resource pair ('List all lights') and scopes it to 'a Protect console.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and is distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_light and update_light, which retrieve or modify a single light.

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 intended use is implied by the name and first sentence: call this when you need to enumerate lights on a Protect console. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as get_light for retrieving a single light, so the agent must infer the selection.

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