list_available_audio_effects

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 behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Lists' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple listing tool, the behavior is transparent enough. A higher score would require explicit confirmation of non-destructiveness or context requirements, but the simplicity of the operation justifies this score.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it tells the agent exactly what the tool does and implies what the return value is (a list of audio effects). It could be argued that a bit more detail about the output format or context would be helpful, but for a trivial listing tool, this is sufficient. The score reflects the minimalistic nature without penalizing unnecessarily.

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 input schema is an empty object with no parameters. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed. The schema provides full coverage (100%), so this dimension is satisfied.

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's function: 'Lists all available audio effects in Premiere Pro.' It uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('all available audio effects'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_available_effects (which likely lists all effects) and list_available_audio_transitions (audio transitions, not effects). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 used when you want to see what audio effects are available in Premiere Pro, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_available_effects or list_available_audio_transitions. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites, so 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.