Inspect effect parameters

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it explains that the 'read' temporarily applies the effect on a temp comp and removes it within the same undo step, which justifies readOnlyHint=false and reassures the agent that comps/layers are untouched. It also documents failure behavior (unknown effect names fail with suggestions). Minor gap: no mention of whether the temporary application can fail on effects requiring specific layer types.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and payoff, then the side-effect/undo behavior, then the alternate mode. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates what is returned (names, match names, value types, defaults, min/max). Side effects, mode selection and error behavior are covered; only edge cases (invalid comp/layer, effects that cannot be instantiated) are unaddressed.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema does not convey, notably that comp+layer must be combined to target an already-applied effect and that omitting them yields a fresh default instance. The effect-name vs. index nuance is left to 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (an effect's parameters) with the exact returned fields enumerated in parentheses. It is clearly distinguished from siblings ae_apply_effect, ae_set_effect_params and generic property readers like ae_get_properties.

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?

Explicitly states the purpose is to obtain exact parameter names for ae_apply_effect / ae_set_effect_params, and gives a clear selection rule between the two modes: default fresh instance vs. pass comp+layer to read an already-applied effect with current values.

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