effect_catalog

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real value: row counts, that first rows include the editor thumbnail, that ids returns one picture per effect, that page serves contact sheets of the first 84 looping effects photographed on a character, that queries omits pictures, and that the result explains how to play and clear the effect in graph code. Provenance ("read from the editor's own lists on 2026-10-11") further grounds the data; only pagination/limit behavior is undisclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the middle is a semicolon-chained run-on that mixes parameter documentation into prose, and parenthetical example lists (fireworks, glows, question marks) pad rather than inform. Readable but not tight.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close: return content, provenance, and most modes are covered. Gaps remain on pagination/limit semantics and the pictures parameter, which an agent must guess from defaults.

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 0%, so the description carries the load and does explain query (Chinese name words), kind ("timed"/"looping"), ids, page, and queries. But limit, offset, and pictures (default 12, 0-30) are never explained, leaving three of eight parameters undocumented in both places.

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 opening sentence states the resource precisely: a named catalog of platform special effects a node graph can show, split into 1986 one-off (限时) and 1209 looping (循环) effects with concrete examples of each. That is enough to separate it from sound_catalog/image_catalog without opening schemas, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Feedback is what makes a level feel like a game: give every action of the player one (picked up, bought, refused, hit, built, lost)" gives a clear use context, and the mode phrases (query, kind, ids, page, queries) show which entry point to pick. It stops short of any when-not guidance or explicit routing away from alternative catalogs.

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