pr_findEffects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that third-party plugins are included in the search space, not just built-ins — but says nothing about result ordering, match semantics (substring vs fuzzy), or what identifying handle the results 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the host app named first and the scope detail (built-in vs third-party) positioned before the search method. No filler, though the dash-separated plugin clause makes it slightly denser than necessary.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description leaves an important gap: it does not say what comes back (effect names only? identifiers usable with pr_applyEffect?). Without an output schema, that return-shape information must come from the description and does not.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate; it partially does, since 'by name' explains the query parameter and the enumeration of video/audio effects and transitions mirrors the kind enum values. However, it never mentions that both parameters are optional, what the default (presumably 'all') is, or that kind is an enum selector at all.

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 (search) and resource (installed video/audio effects and transitions) with an explicit scope qualifier (built-in AND third-party plugins) and method (by name). It is clearly a discovery tool, distinguishable from pr_applyEffect/pr_applyTransition, but it does not name those siblings to make the relationship explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step before applying an effect or transition, and that results cover both stock and plugin effects. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to pr_applyEffect/pr_applyTransition as the follow-up action.

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