list_effects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the two output shapes (brief one-liners vs full parameters), which implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about permissions, whether the catalogue is scoped to the current project, or limits.

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 clipped sentences, zero waste, and the mode split is front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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, so the description must describe returns - and it does for both modes. For a one-optional-parameter listing tool this is nearly sufficient; only the lack of sibling/scope context keeps it from being complete.

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 coverage is 0% for the single optional name parameter, so the description must compensate - and it does, precisely: omitting name lists all effects with one-liners, supplying it returns that effect's parameters. The semantic difference between the two modes is fully explained.

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?

"Effect catalogue" names the resource and the two modes make clear that it lists effects and can drill into one. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling list_looks.

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 explains the two invocation modes (with/without name) which is genuine conditional guidance. It stops short of any tool-selection guidance, e.g. when to use list_effects vs list_looks or add_effect/update_effect.

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