list_lights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about traversal scope (recursive vs direct children), what happens on an invalid path, or permissions. It is read-only in effect but that is only implied by the verb 'List', not stated.

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 with zero wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits the meaning of the sole parameter and the scope of the listing, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with many overlapping siblings.

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 single required parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain whether it is a stage path, prim path, or file path. With one undocumented parameter the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 (List) and a narrow resource (light prims in a USD stage), which is more precise than the generic sibling list_usd_prims. However it never names an alternative or clarifies scope relative to list_usd_prims / lop_prim_search, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the several overlapping prim-listing siblings (list_usd_prims, lop_prim_search, lop_prim_get). The agent can only infer usage from the tool name.

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