list_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the listing action without disclosing behavioral traits such as permissions, limits, sorting, or whether it returns full effect details or just names. The output schema may cover return structure, but description lacks this context.

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 sentence with no redundancy; it efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key exclusion. Front-loaded and concise.

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 listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic operation but fails to explain the required parameter or any behavioral nuances, leaving gaps that the output schema cannot fully compensate for.

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 adds no meaning for the only parameter (target_path). The description does not explain what path is expected (e.g., bus vs. event-track, format), leaving the agent to guess.

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 specifies 'list' as the verb and 'effects' as the resource, adding scope ('on a bus or event-track chain') and an exclusion ('excludes the built-in fader'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_effect or list_effect_types.

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 clear context about what is listed (effects on bus/event-track chains) and what is excluded, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_effect or bypass_effect, nor provide when-not scenarios.

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