list-layer-effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('List') but does not explicitly state safety, edge-case behavior, or how recursion affects output. The optional recursion hint is present but underelaborated.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and mentions the optional capability efficiently.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the returned list looks like or what 'effects' includes. It also lacks context about parameter relationships (e.g., maxDepth only matters when includeProperties is true) and does not mention any limitations or prerequisites.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'recursive property details' which loosely maps to includeProperties/maxDepth, but it does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the already-detailed schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List effects on a layer') and indicates an optional feature ('recursive property details'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list-available-effects, the focus on 'on a layer' makes the purpose clear enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer list-layer-effects over list-available-effects or other inspection tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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