List Available Audio Transitions

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it flags the tool as experimental, built on undocumented QE DOM, and — importantly — that an unavailable or empty catalog surfaces as an error rather than a silently empty list. That error-vs-empty distinction changes how an agent must handle the response.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the EXPERIMENTAL caveat, and both earn their place — one states purpose, the other states the failure semantics an agent must anticipate.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the experimental status and the critical error-on-empty behavior. Only the lack of routing guidance against sibling catalog tools keeps it from full marks.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List audio transitions") and the name plus description distinguish it from the video sibling list_available_transitions and from list_available_audio_effects. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the audio-scoped resource is unambiguous.

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 call this versus list_available_transitions or how to apply the result; it only warns that the catalog is legacy. The EXPERIMENTAL note implies caution but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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