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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but never explicitly states that the operation is read-only, what the return structure looks like, or what happens when no lights exist. This is minimal disclosure for a simple list tool.

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 compact sentence with no filler or redundancy, and it front-loads the core information about lights and their attributes. The structure is slightly awkward because it is a noun phrase fragment rather than a complete imperative sentence, but it remains concise and efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable summary of what is returned, but it could be more complete by explicitly stating 'Returns a list of...' and clarifying that it reflects the current scene. The absence of an explicit verb leaves slight ambiguity about the exact return value.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects this with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter detail, which is appropriate since there is nothing to document. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource ('lights') and the specific attributes returned (type, energy, colour, type-specific settings), which distinguishes it from other light-related tools like create_light or set_light_properties. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', making it a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement of action.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. Since there are no other light-listing sibling tools and it takes zero parameters, the usage is implied: call it to retrieve all lights in the current scene. This is adequate but left entirely to inference.

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