light_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description agrees with these. It adds useful context beyond annotations by noting that multiplier/intensity is read defensively across releases, signaling version-compatibility handling.

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 compact and front-loads the resource and returned fields. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant, but both parts are short, clear, and information-dense.

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 simple read tool with one well-documented parameter and readOnly/destructive annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is effectively complete. It names the resource and all returned aspects; only detailed return formatting is not specified, but no output schema exists to require it.

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 100%, and the single required 'light' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Light name.' The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('read') with a clear resource (a light) and enumerates exactly which details are returned: position, multiplier/intensity, color, shadow state, and enabled flag. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like light_set (write) and light_list (list).

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 clearly frames this as a read-only detail-inspection tool, which implies when to use it versus mutating tools like light_set. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so some inference is left to the agent.

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