shaderfx-types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'list' which implies read-only, but doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free, nor does it describe the output format (e.g., a list of type names). There's no risk of destructive action stated, but no confirmation either.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains zero fluff. It precisely states the purpose without any unnecessary details.

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-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It clarifies the scope ('supported by the running Blender') and the resource ('shader effect types'). It could potentially mention what 'types' means or that the result is a list, but that's implied by 'list'.

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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description clearly explains the sole purpose, which is sufficient given there are no parameters to elaborate. It adds meaning by specifying 'supported by the running Blender', which is beyond an empty 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?

The description states a clear action: 'List shader effect types supported by the running Blender' with a specific resource (shader effect types) and context (running Blender). It's not tautological and distinguishes from sibling tools like shaderfx-list, though it doesn't explicitly contrast 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this lists types only, or when to use shaderfx-list for actual effects, or any context like prerequisites. The description is purely declarative with no usage hints.

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