list_available_effects

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'lists' which implies read-only, but doesn't mention performance characteristics, whether effects are returned in any specific order, or whether availability depends on current selection/context. For a read-only list operation this is minimal but could be more explicit about what 'video effects' includes (vs audio/transitions).

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No fluff. Extremely concise.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the core purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish from list_available_transitions or clarify whether it returns names only or includes metadata, and there's no output schema. The material being complete enough for a standard list, but lacks distinction from similar tools.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 params is high – nothing needed. Score 4 because the dimension is trivially satisfied.

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 states a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('available video effects in Premiere Pro'). This is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like list_available_transitions and list_available_audio_effects, which explicitly cover different effect categories.

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 its siblings. Given the cluster of similar tools (list_available_transitions, list_clip_effects, list_available_audio_effects), the description should at least clarify that this covers video effects specifically, but it relies on the user inferring from the name.

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