Get Effects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no indication of whether it requires a selection, how large the result may be, or whether it errors when no target is given.

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 only six words with no punctuation or structure, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope or qualifier to make the brevity useful.

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 and no annotations beyond the safety profile, so the description should carry the burden of explaining return content and scope, which it does not. For a query tool with a filtering parameter and a coordinate-system mode, the agent has no idea what a result set looks like or how it relates to the current selection.

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%, including a detailed enum explanation for coordinate_system, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about target, selection_only, or coordinate_system beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb ('Get') and a resource area ('effect and appearance information'), so the agent knows this is a read for styling/effects data. However, 'effects' and 'appearance' are broad, undefined terms, and the description gives no differentiation from nearby siblings such as list_graphic_styles, get_overprint_info, or get_separation_info. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing exactly what 'effects' covers.

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 what scope it reads (whole document vs. selection vs. a single object), and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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