capcut_list_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states it searches a catalog, which weakly implies a read-only lookup, but it does not mention whether data comes from a local cache or network, what the response looks like, whether any project state is touched, or any other behavioral traits.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and resource, followed by useful examples in parentheses. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is almost sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what a returned entry contains or how results relate to capcut_apply_transition. This leaves a moderate gap in the agent's ability to fully anticipate the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, query, and cachedOnly. The description's examples are catalog entry names rather than parameter explanations, so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb, 'Search', and a clear resource, 'CapCut transitions catalog', with example entries like Cross Dissolve. This readily distinguishes it from sibling catalog tools such as capcut_list_effects and 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 description implies the tool is for finding transitions in the catalog, but it never explicitly says 'use this to look up transitions before calling capcut_apply_transition' or mentions when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are stated, so the usage guidance remains only implicit.

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