my_effects

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining the tool's behavior—and it mostly does. It gives the meaning of each status code (100/101/111/112/120/103/104/113/118/119), describes the nested `review` object (text, refuse_reasons, links) that appears only on 101/112/119 effects, and warns that returned refs are valid only for the lifetime of this MCP service run. It never states that the tool is read-only or what permissions it requires, which is a small gap for a listing tool.

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?

It is dense but ordered well: it first explains what the result is and how it is ordered, then details the returned fields and status codes, and finally explains ref handling and how refs are passed to image_view. Listing every status code is verbose, but because there is no output schema, that list earns its place. A few clauses could be tighter, but overall it is information-dense with little waste.

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 compensates by documenting the returned fields, the status code table, the conditional `review` subobject, and the short-ref indirection to image_view with its validity window. For a 4-parameter, 0-required tool with 100% schema coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret its output is missing.

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%: the schema already documents count (default 20, max 50), the cursor (take next_cursor verbatim), and the instance_id/project_path alternative. The description adds nothing about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies; it does not compensate for anything because nothing needs it.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource: the effects that the currently logged-in account has submitted, ordered with the newest first, and notes that it uses the same interface as the 像塑 mobile app's 「作品」. It also names the sibling tool it is not: my_effect_reviews is for the full review timeline, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to switch tools: for the complete review timeline, use my_effect_reviews instead, and pass returned image/video/audio refs to image_view. It does not clearly contrast with works_list or works_by_effect, but within its own scope, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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