list_effects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the operation returns effect names only, includes disabled effects, or if any side effects occur. No additional context is added beyond the bare verb.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and object. Every word is necessary, 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 tool with four parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how parameters interrelate, what the return format is, or how errors are handled. An agent cannot safely infer how to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the four parameters (compId, compName, layerName, layerIndex) at all. While 'on a layer' hints at layerName/layerIndex, the description fails to clarify how composition and layer identifiers work, which parameter combinations are valid, or whether any are required. The description adds no semantic value over the schema's raw types.

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' uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('effects'), and scopes it to a layer. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_layers (which lists layers) and apply_effect (which adds effects).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other effect-related tools like modify_effect_properties or remove_effect. The intended use case is only implied by the verb 'list'.

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