list_fcp_libraries

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden, disclosing that the tool is read-only, uses Apple's scripting dictionary, refuses to launch unless allow_launch is true, and is macOS-only. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences. It front-loads the key action ('LIVE') and maximally uses each word. No superfluous content.

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 simple enumeration tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention what is returned (list of names/paths?) but the verb 'enumerate' implies listing. Still adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the allow_launch parameter's effect ('refuses to launch unless true'), which goes beyond the schema's default-value indication.

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 it enumerates libraries, events, and projects from Final Cut Pro, using specific verbs and resource types. It effectively distinguishes from sibling listing tools (e.g., list_clips, list_markers) by focusing on library/event/project scope.

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 notes the read-only nature and the condition that FCP must be running or allow_launch must be true, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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