list_available_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it 'lists' something, which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that it does not modify anything, nor does it describe the format of the list or any potential side effects. Since it's a simple listing operation, the description is adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the purpose and scope. There is zero wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the key verb. Perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention what the list contains (e.g., transition names, categories, whether they are available for both video and audio tracks), and it doesn't hint at how the list might be used with other tools. For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but could slightly improve by mentioning typical usage.

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, so the schema is fully complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description accurately implies no inputs are required.

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 'Lists all available video transitions in Premiere Pro' clearly states the verb (lists) and the resource (available video transitions) and the domain (Premiere Pro). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'video' transitions, differentiating from 'list_available_audio_transitions' and 'list_available_effects'. Clear and specific.

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 clarifies what it lists but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that transitions are typically applied via 'add_transition' or 'add_transition_to_clip', or that the output list might be used to choose a transition name. However, the purpose is straightforward and the use case is implied for choosing a transition type.

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