capcut_list_effects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Search' reasonably conveys a non-mutating read operation, and the catalog size adds useful context. It does not mention behaviors like cachedOnly semantics or no-query behavior, but the read-only nature is adequately implied.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every segment—search action, resource, approximate catalog size, and search axes—adds value.

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 optional-parameter catalog search tool, the description plus the fully documented schema is largely sufficient: an agent knows to pass query, category, limit, or cachedOnly. Minor gaps are the lack of a return-format note and ambiguity about behavior when both query and category are omitted, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the keyword/category search mapping, which is already reflected in the query and category parameters. Limit and cachedOnly are already documented in the schema and need no repetition.

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 ('Search') and resource ('CapCut visual/character effects catalog'), and adds useful scale context (~1800+ entries). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_transitions, list_filters, and list_stickers, though the phrase 'visual/character effects' undersells the audio_effect enum in the schema.

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 word 'Search' implies this is for discovering catalog entries rather than applying effects or modifying a timeline. However, the description does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is only implied.

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