list_available_transitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' clearly conveys a read-only, non-mutating operation, but it does not define the precise scope of 'available' or describe the returned items. This is minimal but not misleading disclosure.

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 one direct sentence with no filler. The action ('Lists') and the resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 list tool, the description covers the essential action and resource. It does not specify the exact return structure, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but this omission is minor for such a simple tool.

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 has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; no additional parameter detail is needed.

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 ('Lists') and a clear resource ('all available video transitions in Premiere Pro'). The 'video' qualifier also distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_available_audio_transitions and list_available_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 description implies when to use it—whenever an agent needs the available video transitions—but it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives like list_available_audio_transitions. The usage context is inferable, not spelled out.

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