effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It openly declares 'Read-only' at the start, which is a key behavioral trait and sufficient for a simple query tool. It does not detail pagination or other edge behaviors, but for a read-only list tool this level is adequate.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the read-only nature and scope; the second gives a precise use case. Every word earns its place.

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 single-optional-param read tool, the description covers what it does and when to use it, and the schema covers the param semantics. With no output schema, an agent may not know the exact return fields beyond 'one row per effect key', but the simple nature of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single 'state' parameter thoroughly described including enum meanings. The tool description itself adds little parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It only hints at which states matter for the resolve/retry workflow.

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 clearly states the resource (logical effects) and verb (list/read) with a specific granularity ('one row per effect key'). It avoids tautology and conveys a concrete purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like stats or inspect_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?

The description gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to find the effects whose outcome is unknown, which are the ones resolve can move on and the ones blocking a retry.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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