effect_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read and store' is ambiguous: it might imply a write operation, but there's no disclosure of side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The note about parameter semantics is vague and does not clarify the tool's operational behavior.

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 concise at two sentences, but the second sentence is cryptic and adds little value. While brevity is good, it under-specifies key aspects, so it doesn't earn a higher score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested schema, many optional fields) and lack of annotations, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer how to call it correctly, what the expected behavior is, or what the tool returns. It fails to provide essential context.

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%, yet the description adds zero explanation of the parameters. The schema is complex (nested plugin object with many fields), but the description only mentions 'plugin parameters and programs' generically, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for constructing inputs.

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 states a clear action ('Read and store') on a specific resource ('plugin parameters and programs'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like effect_probe or parameter_annotate, which also deal with plugin parameters, so it's not perfectly distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions any prerequisite, condition, nor contrasts with other tools. An agent gets no help in deciding between this and the many sibling tools.

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