foundry_list_status_effects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds that the tool lists status effects 'supported by the game system,' which sets expectations about the scope of results. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and object, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 simple list tool, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks details about the return structure (no output schema) and does not disambiguate from related tools like foundry_get_effects. The context is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves ambiguities about the nature of 'status effects' and how they differ from other effect lists.

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 input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions, including defaults and purpose (e.g., userId for permission-scoped access, clientId defaulting to FOUNDRY_CLIENT_ID). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it relies entirely on the schema, which is adequate.

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 lists status effects, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like foundry_get_effects, which might overlap in purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as foundry_get_effects or foundry_add_effect. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description, with no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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