capcut_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the operation is non-destructive ('Lists') and that it operates on local projects, and it tells the agent what fields are returned. However, it does not disclose edge cases like an empty project list, ordering, or whether the CapCut app must be running.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action immediately and packs relevant return-value details into a short phrase. Every word adds information, and there is no repetition of the tool name or filler.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, scope, and returned fields. Because there is no output schema, the description's mention of duration, resolution, track counts, and lock status is valuable; minor omissions like empty-list behavior are acceptable for a list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivial. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lists all CapCut video projects on this computer'. It also states the key returned fields (duration, resolution, track counts, lock status), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from singular tools like capcut_get_project.

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 implies this tool is for enumerating all local projects, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as capcut_get_project or capcut_get_media_info. There is no guidance about when not to use it or what prerequisites might exist.

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