capcut_inspect_draft

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read scope (tracks, segments, materials), which signals a non-destructive inspection and is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about whether missing drafts error, whether the read is expensive, or what the returned structure looks like.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it could trade a few words for a routing hint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and one required string parameter is a low-complexity interface. Still, with no annotations and no schema descriptions anywhere, the definition leaves the agent to guess at error behavior and sibling disambiguation.

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% and the single draft_name parameter has no description. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to clarify whether it must be an existing draft, how it is matched, or whether an ID versus a name is acceptable.

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?

Specific verb (inspect) plus a precise resource enumeration (timeline tracks, segments, materials of a draft), which tells the agent exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling capcut_list_drafts, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the verb alone that this is a read-before-edit step rather than something like capcut_list_drafts.

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