list_available_transitions

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. The verb 'Lists' implies a read-only operation without side effects, which is useful but not explicit. The description does not mention return format, performance, or any edge cases, but for a simple listing tool this may be adequate.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect conciseness score.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is complete in stating what it returns (available video transitions). It could be enhanced by explicitly noting the return format or read-only nature, but given the simplicity, it meets the minimal requirements without major gaps.

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 schema to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the action and resource. A baseline of 4 is justified since parameter semantics are irrelevant here.

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' with a clear resource ('available video transitions') and scope ('in Premiere Pro'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_available_audio_effects and list_available_effects, making the purpose 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 context is clear: this tool is for listing available video transitions, as opposed to audio transitions or effects. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the simple scope and sibling naming provide sufficient guidance for when to use it.

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