get_scene_transition_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates that the tool lists all configured transitions and marks the current one, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any potential edge cases. The description is adequate for a simple read-only list but lacks additional behavioral context.

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 main action ('List every configured transition') and important detail ('which one is current'). There is no filler or repetition, making it 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 params, no output schema), the description states the core purpose but does not specify the structure of the return value. It does not clarify whether the list is an array of strings, objects, or how the current transition is identified. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more return-value detail to be 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, and the input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the absence of parameters is consistent with the described behavior.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every configured transition'), and adds the distinguishing detail that it indicates which transition is current. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_transition_kind_list (which lists available types) and get_current_scene_transition (which retrieves only the current one).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to see all configured transitions and identify the current one. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the self-contained use case is unambiguous. Given no explicit when/when-not guidance, it falls short of a 5 but is more than implied usage.

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