Get Hyperiux Effect Details

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that source fetches require a signed-in account, count against a daily install cap, that Pro effects need a subscription, and that locked/rate-limited responses are expected rather than errors ('Don't retry'). It also names the sentinel response fields (sign_in_required, source_locked, rate_limited, install_remaining) so the agent can interpret outcomes.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence and organized under clear Args/Returns/Examples/Error Handling headers, so it scans well. However, the sign-in and rate-limit explanation is restated across three paragraphs and duplicates part of the schema's include_source description, so it runs longer than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully documents the JSON return shape including nested changelog entries and conditional files[].content. Auth, quota, Pro gating, and the not-found error are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: include_source's default of false, the quota cost implication, and the auth gating, plus a worked example for each value. Marginal redundancy with the schema's own include_source description keeps it from a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for one Hyperiux Vault effect by its exact slug') and enumerates exactly what is returned. It is clearly differentiated from hyperiux_list_effects, which is named both as the alternative and in the error-handling section.

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 when to use it (you have an exact slug), when not to ('Don't use when: you don't have an exact slug yet - use hyperiux_list_effects first'), and gives three concrete usage examples including the include_source=true variant. The alternative and the condition selecting it are both named.

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