fcp_launch

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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the call blocks ('wait until it responds') and is effectively idempotent via bring-forward. Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-openWorld, so the remaining burden is low. It doesn't say what happens on timeout or if the app is not installed.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and the completion condition front-loaded; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool takes no parameters. The only gap is failure/timeout behavior, which is minor for a simple launch tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so per baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Open Final Cut Pro'), plus the alternate behavior (bring forward) and the completion condition. It is distinguishable from siblings like fcp_status because it launches rather than queries, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 'or bring it forward' phrasing implies it is safe to call whether or not FCP is running, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer fcp_status first or what to do if launch fails. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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