capcut_project_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It openly states that it reports whether each file "still exists on disk," which is a useful behavioral detail beyond simple listing. It does not mention error cases or permissions, but as a read-only listing tool, the description is adequately transparent.

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 two sentences, with the action and outputs front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, what it reports (size and existence), and a concrete use case. It could have mentioned what happens if the project does not exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its scope.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'project' has a clear description in the schema ("Folder name exactly as capcut_list_projects reports it"). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter guidance, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without added value.

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 "List" and clearly identifies the resource: "source files a project references." It further specifies what is included (size, existence on disk), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like capcut_list_projects (which lists projects) and capcut_read_project (which reads project details).

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 provides a clear usage context: "Use this to find edits broken by moved or deleted media." This tells the agent when and why to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. This is slightly below the top score because no exclusions or alternative mentions are present.

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