light_list

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by disclosing pagination behavior and the specific fields returned (name, class, position). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences (bilingual) to convey the purpose, returned fields, and pagination. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 list tool with optional pagination params and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not specify ordering, filtering, or whether hidden lights are included, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'limit' and 'offset' (maximum entries and starting offset). The description mentions pagination, which aligns with these parameters, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists every light in the scene with name, class, and position, and is paginated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like light_get (single light properties), light_set (modify lights), and list_objects (all objects). The verb 'list' and resource 'lights' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies its use case (enumerating lights) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as light_get for individual lights or list_objects for all objects. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so the agent must infer the selection from the name and purpose.

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