ae_list_layer_effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Changes nothing' is a useful explicit read-only/no-side-effect disclosure and it hints at the return shape (property tree plus current values), but it does not cover permissions, response size, or error behavior for a missing layer.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and return content front-loaded and the safety note trailing. Nothing extraneous.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential shape of what comes back (effects with their property tree and current values) and affirms no mutation. Minor gaps around error cases and layer resolution are acceptable at this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including their defaults. The description's mention of 'property tree' and 'current values' loosely maps to depth/values but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: list the effects applied to a layer, plus what the listing contains (property tree, current values). This is clearly distinct from sibling ae_list_available_effects, which lists the library of effects rather than those applied to a layer, though the description does not explicitly name that distinction.

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?

Usage is implied (inspect what effects already exist on a layer before applying, removing, or setting properties), but no when/when-not condition or alternative is named. An agent must infer the ae_list_available_effects vs ae_list_layer_effects split on its own.

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