Effect catalogue

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavioral context: the data source is harvested projects, there is no authoritative endpoint, and the server makes no guarantees for unlisted slugs. This warns the agent about a real reliability limitation, which is valuable beyond the annotation's safety hint.

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 tight sentences: the first states what the tool does, and the second carries the usage directive and caveat. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 simple filtered-list tool, this is complete: it names the output domain (slugs and parameters), gives usage timing, and flags the reliability caveat. It doesn't detail the exact return shape or pagination, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 fully documents the single optional query parameter with examples ('reverb', 'amp', 'drive'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists BandLab effect slugs and their parameters'. It also gives the data's provenance ('harvested from real published projects'), which clearly distinguishes this catalogue tool from the sibling tools that deal with songs, revisions, mixes, and capabilities.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to consult this tool 'before add_effect or set_effect_params' and explains why: BandLab has no effects endpoint, slugs are undocumented, and unlisted slugs cannot be vouched for. This is direct, actionable routing guidance rather than vague context.

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