capcut_list_stickers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Search' and the phrase 'available and cached' signal a read-only lookup, but the description does not explain cache semantics, network behavior, pagination, or output structure.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant wording or filler. It is compact, scannable, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 read-only search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not state what the response contains (e.g., sticker IDs, names, types) or how results connect to capcut_add_sticker, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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%: both `query` and `limit` are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource ('CapCut stickers, emojis, subscribe buttons, and badges'), with a scope qualifier ('available and cached'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools such as capcut_list_effects or capcut_list_filters.

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 intended use case is implied by the resource type: an agent would search stickers before using capcut_add_sticker. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance, so the usage context is only implicit.

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