mixer_effect_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is to list effects, which implies a read-only action, but it does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects, does not require special permissions, or explain what happens if the group does not exist. No behavioral protraits beyond the basic action are disclosed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence and a parameter clarification. It front-loads the primary purpose immediately and includes no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects), the description is minimal but lacks critical context for an agent to confidently invoke it. There is no output schema, so the return format is unknown, and the description does not specify what constitutes a 'chain' or what to expect in the response. Additionally, no guidance is given on error conditions or how this tool integrates with other mixer tools. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect assumptions.

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?

The description supplements the bare schema (which has no parameter descriptions, 0% coverage) by explaining that the 'target' parameter accepts either a group path or a GUID. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definition, helping the agent understand the acceptable format. However, it does not elaborate on path conventions or examples, so it is not exhaustive.

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 function: 'List the effects on a group's chain.' This provides a specific verb (list) and resource (effects on a group's chain), and it distinguishes from the sibling tool mixer_effect_add which adds effects. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no reference to other tools like mixer_group_info or mixer_effect_add, or to when listing effects would be appropriate. This is a significant gap for usage decision-making.

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