list_available_audio_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Lists' implies a read-only operation, which is reasonably self-evident, but it doesn't explicitly state that it doesn't modify anything or clarify the return format (e.g., names only, categories). For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that fully states the tool's purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to clarity, and it's front-loaded with the verb. Zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It clearly communicates the function and scope. The only minor gap is not specifying whether the list includes all types of audio effects (e.g., built-in, third-party, or both), but that's likely implied by 'all available'.

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 has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly notes it lists effects but doesn't need to describe parameters since there are none. Schema coverage is complete (though trivially).

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 clearly states the action (lists) and the resource (all available audio effects in Premiere Pro). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_available_effects and list_available_audio_transitions by specifying audio effects, making the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_available_effects might include audio effects or that this tool is the audio-specific subset. No exclusions or alternative tool names are cited.

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