list_effects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only enumeration of effect names and adds the context that results are meant for exact naming in apply_effect. It does not detail output format or potential size, but for a simple list tool the behavior is adequately transparent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a direct usage pointer. Every word adds value with no repetition of schema details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description clearly implies the return value (a list of effect names) and gives enough context about its relationship to apply_effect. It might benefit from noting optional filters, but the schema already covers that, so the completeness is strong.

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 50% with only 'filter' described. The description adds meaning by explaining 'video or audio' for the kind parameter, and the filter parameter is already described in the schema. This compensation justifies above-baseline scoring.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('every video or audio effect name Premiere can apply'), and it explicitly ties to apply_effect, distinguishing it from siblings like list_transitions and apply_effect.

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 states a clear use case: 'Use this to get exact names for apply_effect.' This provides strong when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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