capcut_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sort order (newest first), source (local draft library), and output fields (duration, resolution, track count), but doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or response format. Listing is inherently non-mutating, and the added behavioral details are useful.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the action and immediately adds workflow guidance, with every word earning its place.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it tells the user what data is returned, sorting, and its role in the workflow, including implicit project names via 'every other tool takes a project name from this list'.

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 there is no parameter-level meaning to add. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there are no gaps to compensate for.

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 tool lists CapCut projects in the local draft library with specific output fields (duration, resolution, track count) and sort order (newest first). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the starting point for obtaining project names.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here' and explains that all other tools take a project name from this list, providing clear when-to-use guidance and context about its role relative to siblings.

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