Find Effects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are capped at 50 — but says nothing about matching semantics (case sensitivity, fuzzy vs exact) or what happens on zero matches.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the search fields and the result cap packed in without filler. Nothing is wasted.

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, so the description could usefully say what a match looks like (effect name/id/category) for an agent that must feed a result into apply_effect. Combined with the missing matching semantics, this leaves a modest but real gap for a search tool.

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 coverage is 0% (the lone "query" property is an untyped string), and the description compensates by stating what the query is matched against: display name, match name or category. This is real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't say whether matching is exact or partial or how multiple terms combine.

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 ("Search installed effects") and names the fields it searches, which clearly separates it from sibling actions like apply_effect, edit_effect and find_fonts. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to related tools such as apply_effect (which would consume a found effect) or find_fonts. The discovery intent is only weakly implied by the word "Search".

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