ae_list_effects

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It conveys a read-only listing operation and the output fields, but does not mention error behavior for missing layers, ambiguity resolution between names and indices, or return shape details such as ordering and empty results.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then packs the key return fields into a parenthetical. There is no redundant or filler 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 listing tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the expected output fields, though it omits edge-case behavior and explicit return type, which are minor given the low complexity.

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%: comp_name, comp_index, layer_name, and layer_index are all individually documented. The tool description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'List effects on a layer' — and names the returned fields (name, matchName, index). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ae_apply_effect or ae_remove_effect by action and intent.

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 verb 'List' implies this is the right tool when an agent needs to inspect existing effects, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is conveyed indirectly rather than stated.

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