list_effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List all effects on a layer' implies a non-destructive read operation, which is implied but not explicit. It conveys the basic behavior without detailing the return format, pagination, or effect ordering, but is adequate for a simple list operation.

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, focused sentence of nine words that uses the verb 'List' and the target 'effects on a layer'. It conveys the most important purpose immediately with no wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 the complexity level, this is a list operation with four optional parameters but no required ones. The description is potentially complete for a straightforward listing scenario, though it doesn't address how effects are identified when multiple layers or compositions share names. Minimal viable for the documented scope.

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 are required, but there are four optional filters (compId, compName, layerName, layerIndex). With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter documentation in the description, the agent cannot know how to select between compId vs compName or layerName vs layerIndex. Baseline 3 applies despite the schema providing type/name hints.

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 'List all effects on a layer' clearly uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'effects on a layer'. It has high purpose clarity as a read-only listing operation. It distinguishes from siblings like list_layers and list_compositions, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 implies the tool is used for reading effects but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus sibling tools like get_layer_info or apply_effect, which may also relate to effects. Usage must be inferred from typical MCP tool naming conventions.

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