capcut_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned content (text, numbered buttons, links, fields), which hints that button numbers feed into capcut_click, but it says nothing about read-only safety, output size limits, or how numbering is assigned.

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 target front-loaded and the return contents listed after the colon. No filler, though the list could be tighter.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description should explain the return format; it names the categories of content but not how they are presented (e.g., numbering scheme, truncation). Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent that must act on the output.

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 single optional 'element' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Read only inside this element.'), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no further meaning about how element indices are obtained or whether omitting it reads the whole page — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (the current CapCut page), then enumerates what it surfaces: text, numbered buttons, links and fields. That distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings (click, type, open, close), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from capcut_status.

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 by 'current page' — call it to inspect page state — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as capcut_status or capcut_guide. An agent must infer the routing.

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