list_available_audio_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. It accurately states that the tool lists all available audio transitions, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, whether a project must be open, or any other behavioral details. For a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the operation. No wasted words, ideal structure for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, so the description covers the primary behavior. However, without an output schema or annotations, it doesn't specify the structure of the returned list (e.g., names, IDs), leaving some ambiguity. Still, for a list operation, this is largely complete.

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 the schema fully covers parameter semantics. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since no parameters exist.

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 'Lists' and resource 'all available audio transitions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_available_transitions' (which could include video) and 'list_available_audio_effects' (effects vs. transitions).

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 usage for discovering audio transitions but provides no explicit when-to-use or exclusions. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'list_available_transitions' or 'list_available_audio_effects', so guidance is only inferred from the tool name and context.

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