get-effects-help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only access, return format, or that the output is a reference list to be fed into the apply-effect tools. The single noun phrase discloses no behavioral traits at all.

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?

It is very short with no wasted clauses, but it is a fragment rather than a complete, front-loaded sentence, and brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficiency.

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 simple zero-parameter reference tool this is close to the minimum, but it omits the one thing an agent needs: that it returns a lookup list of effect identifiers/templates used by the apply-effect siblings, and why to choose it over get-help. The definition is too thin even for a low-complexity 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level semantics are missing.

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 names the resource content ('effect match names and the predefined effect templates') but supplies no verb — it is a noun phrase rather than a statement of what the tool does. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling get-help, so an agent cannot tell which help endpoint to call.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over get-help or how its output relates to apply-effect / apply-effect-template. Usage is only weakly inferable from the 'help' in the name.

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