getEffectProperties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content (parameter names, matchNames, types, values), which is genuine value beyond the schema, but says nothing about error behavior when the layer or effect is not found, or how the identifier parameters are resolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence around the verb 'Inspect' with zero padding. It is efficient, though the enumerated return fields arrive in a dense list rather than being organized.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the shape of the return but leaves the identification model (five optional, seemingly redundant locator params) unexplained. Adequate but with a clear gap an agent would have to guess around.

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 all five parameters are already documented in structured data and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about how compName/layerName/effectName/layerIndex/effectIndex combine to identify the target — notably, all five are optional with no stated resolution rule.

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 (Inspect) and resource (effect on a layer) and enumerates the returned attributes (parameters, matchNames, types, current values). It distinguishes itself implicitly from the mutation siblings applyEffect/setEffectProperties/removeEffect, but never names them or contrasts explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives. The read-only nature is inferable from 'Inspect' amid a cluster of set/apply/remove siblings, but the description offers no condition, no prerequisite, and no exclusion to route the agent.

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