ftrack_parse_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the crucial non-execution behavior, which is a safety-relevant trait, and indicates the validation use case. However, it doesn't describe return values or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifying the non-execution behavior. No wasted words, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose and the non-execution safety aspect. However, it does not state what the function returns (e.g., a parsed structure, validation status, or error), which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 already describes the 'expression' parameter as 'Query expression to parse' with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb 'parse' with a resource 'query expression', and explicitly notes it does not execute the query, clearly distinguishing it from execution tools like ftrack_query. This provides unambiguous purpose and differentiates from siblings.

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 phrase 'without executing it (useful for validation)' implies when to use this tool: to validate a query expression without side effects. It contrasts with execution-oriented sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives that execute queries.

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