List CapCut projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It states the tool 'Lists' projects and mentions the returned fields (folder, path, last-modified time), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention any access implications, leaving some uncertainty about side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully sufficient. It tells the user what the tool lists and what information is provided, leaving no critical gaps for effective use.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; it instead adds value by describing the output fields, which is useful for understanding what the tool returns.

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 and resource ('Lists CapCut projects') and specifies the scope ('local draft store'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It differentiates from sibling tools like inspect_project, which presumably operates on a single project, and editing tools like add_overlay.

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 clearly implies this tool is for enumerating available projects in the local draft store, providing the context needed to choose it over alternatives. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the listing function is so distinct that no exclusion is necessary.

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