getEffect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the full payload shape (code, params, description, cost, regions), which goes beyond the annotations; it does not cover error behavior for a missing/foreign effectId, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Two sentences, both fully load-bearing: the first defines the read and its payload, the second handles disambiguation from the sibling. The most decisive content (what is returned) is front-loaded with zero padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned. Annotations cover the read-only profile. The only gap is the absence of any note on failure modes (invalid effectId, missing projectId outside the editor), which the sibling projectId description hints at but this description does not.

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 50% – projectId is documented in the schema, but effectId has only a minLength constraint and no description. The description's 'one effect of the project' implies the id scopes to a single effect and that projectId scopes the project, which is mild compensation, but it adds no format, sourcing, or fallback detail for effectId.

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 ('Read one effect of the project in full') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: WGSL code, parameters, description, cost, and using regions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling getCurrentDocument, so an agent can route 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 second sentence names the alternative and the condition that separates them: getCurrentDocument lists effects but omits their code, so this tool is the one to call when the code itself is needed. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when...' statement or any exclusion (e.g. batching), so it is strong context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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