read_light_2d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool lists nodes with energy and shadow settings, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether it searches the whole project or current scene, or what happens when no filters are provided. Basic context is present but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, making it very concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., node paths, values) or clarify the behavior of optional filters. However, the schema fills in parameter details and the core purpose is clear, making it minimally viable but with gaps.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (light_type and scene_path), with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'PointLight2D/DirectionalLight2D nodes' with specific details about energy and shadow settings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_light_2d_param (which modifies) and list_lights (which may be more generic).

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 use for reading light 2d nodes, but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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