capcut_list_drafts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the read scope ("found on this machine", i.e. local filesystem rather than a cloud account), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when no drafts exist. Since it is a zero-parameter, non-mutating list operation, the risk of misuse is low, so this is adequate but thin.

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 tight sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant or wasted.

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 described. For a simple zero-arg listing tool against a large sibling set, the description conveys enough to call it correctly, though a one-clause pointer to inspect_draft as the follow-up would make it fully complete.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline for zero-param tools applies. The only semantic contribution is the scope phrase "on this machine".

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 gives a clear verb ("List") and resource ("CapCut drafts") and scopes it to "this machine", which distinguishes it from related siblings like capcut_create_draft and capcut_inspect_draft. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from names alone.

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 implied rather than stated: listing drafts is an obvious discovery step before capcut_inspect_draft or editing tools, but the description never says when to prefer this over inspect_draft/create_draft or what to do with the result. No exclusions or prerequisites are offered.

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