read_reflection_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but does not confirm whether it requires an open scene, what the return format is, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient.

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 brief (three words) and free of fluff, but it is under-specified. While conciseness is valued, the lack of detail about the list results or filtering behavior makes it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 single optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain what the list contains and how the filter behaves. It only states 'List GI probes.', leaving the agent to infer return values and the effect of scene_path. This is a clear gap.

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 provides a description for the only parameter, scene_path, as 'Filter to scene', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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?

'List GI probes.' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (GI probes), distinguishing it from sibling tools that read other resource types. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not elaborate on what constitutes a GI probe or the exact nature of the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description merely states the action without indicating scenarios where it is appropriate.

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