Fl Transport

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description should disclose side effects, but it only lists actions without mentioning whether they modify project state or require specific permissions. The tool changes transport state (play, stop, record), but this is not explicitly flagged as potentially destructive or reversible.

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 concise and well-structured, using a clear format to list parameter values. It covers all key information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 transport control tool, the description provides adequate context for usage, including status retrieval. However, it does not explain the return value or any error conditions, though an output schema is present.

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 description explains all three parameters and their allowed values: action, loop_mode, and speed. It also notes the default speed of 1.0, providing sufficient semantic context for each parameter.

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 identifies the tool as responsible for transport control and status, listing the main actions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool fl_transport_command, which may also handle transport commands.

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 basic usage details, such as calling with no arguments for status, but it does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives like fl_transport_command or fl_status. No comparison or selection guidance is given.

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