capcut_list_transitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a non-mutating search over a fixed bundled catalog, defines the matching rule, and explains the default listing behavior when query is omitted. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe side effects, but the wording strongly implies a safe query operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the operation, resource, and key search semantics; the second clarifies the parameter default. 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?

For a one-optional-param search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, matching behavior, and invocation default. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned matches (e.g., whether IDs are included for use with capcut_add_transition), but the core usage is clear.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the lone 'query' parameter, and it does so thoroughly: name-based, case/space-insensitive substring matching, and optional with a well-defined default ('Omit query to see the first matches'). This fully compensates for the bare schema that only lists type string.

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 ('Search') and names the exact resource: 'the bundled catalog of 116 real CapCut transitions'. It also specifies matching semantics (case/space-insensitive substring), which clearly distinguishes it from mutating siblings like capcut_add_transition and from the other capcut_list_* family tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context: query is an optional name substring, and omitting it returns the first matches. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the distinction from capcut_add_transition and sibling list tools implied rather than spelled out.

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