Inspect an applied effect

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict that. It adds behavioral context by clarifying the effect must already be applied to the layer and by describing the returned payload (all parameters, current values, types), which is valuable absent an output 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, and the second sentence earns its place by connecting the tool to its downstream callers. No filler.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with complete schema coverage, the description provides the key return contract (values and types) even though no output schema exists. It could have mentioned omitted comp/layer fallbacks, but those are already documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents comp, layer, and effect semantics. The description's phrase 'already on a layer' reinforces that effect targets an existing instance rather than a preset, but it does not add meaningful syntax or default-behavior details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every parameter of an effect already on a layer'), and the data returned (current values and types). It also frames the purpose against downstream tools (ae_apply_effect, ae_set_property), which distinguishes it from generic inspection tools in the sibling set.

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?

It provides explicit guidance that this is the discovery step before applying or setting properties ('This is how you discover the exact names...'), which tells an agent when it is useful. It does not name negative cases or alternative tools such as ae_get_property, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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