list_available_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Lists' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no mutation side effects, but it does not disclose output format, whether third-party effects are included, or whether an active project must be open. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant detail or filler.

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 largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether the returned list contains names, IDs, or objects, but the core selection and invocation context is clear.

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 provides no meaningful information to clarify. The description correctly adds the domain context 'video effects,' which is useful, and there are no parameter semantics to document beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('all available video effects in Premiere Pro'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_available_transitions and list_available_audio_effects by explicitly specifying 'video effects.'

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 phrase 'all available video effects' implies this tool is for enumerating the global effect catalog rather than effects on a specific clip, which is the likely use case for sibling list_clip_effects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions.

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