list_effects

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return contents (names, descriptions, model compatibility), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the catalog is static or version-dependent, or whether effects vary by show or license, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 short sentences, purpose first and return content second, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-argument, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call it and what comes back. The missing piece is whether the effect catalog is static or varies by xLights version or environment.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments and is a full enumeration rather than filtered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List all available xLights effects'. The domain is clear and it is not confusable with list_models, list_controllers, or list_sequences, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from them.

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 describes a discovery/catalog lookup but gives no explicit when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no pointer to a sibling such as inspect_sequence for effect usage data. Usage is only implied by 'all available'.

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