fcp_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the meaningful scoping fact that this returns sequence-level metadata only, not timeline contents. It does not mention whether Final Cut Pro must be running or what happens when the name is ambiguous, but with annotations and an output schema in place the bar is lower.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the core capability is front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. However, for a lookup tool with two undocumented scoping parameters (event, library), the description leaves a real ambiguity unresolved: whether a bare name is sufficient or whether the project must be disambiguated by library/event.

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 description coverage is only 33% — just 'name' is documented as exact-match, while 'event' and 'library' have no descriptions at all (default null). The description supplies no parameter guidance whatsoever, not even that event/library narrow the lookup when project names repeat across libraries. With low coverage the description was required to compensate and does not.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('project's sequence details') and an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (duration, start, frame rate, timecode format). The second sentence contrasts scope with fcp_export_xml, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly states the boundary case: for clips, titles and markers, open the project in the timeline and use fcp_export_xml instead. That is an explicit alternative with a condition. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g., needing a library/event to disambiguate duplicate project names) or saying when not to use it at all.

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