fcp_status

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations and adds the diagnostic framing (permissions, helpers) that annotations don't convey. It does not say what the check reports back or what a failure result looks like, and with no output schema that gap matters.

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 short sentences with the diagnostic scope first and the invocation trigger second – well front-loaded and free of padding. Slight deduction because "permissions and helpers" is vague filler rather than informative phrasing.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a status check reveals, and it only gestures at categories (FCP, permissions, helpers). An agent knows when to call it but not what it will learn or how to interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 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 gives a verb ("check") and a resource ("Final Cut Pro, permissions and helpers"), so an agent can tell this is a diagnostic/status tool rather than a media or project operation. But "helpers" is unexplained jargon and the objects being checked are listed vaguely, so the precise purpose is only implied.

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?

"Call this first when something fails" is explicit, actionable guidance on when to invoke the tool, which is unusually good for a status endpoint. It stops short of naming what to do next or which sibling to fall back on for specific failures, but the trigger condition is clear.

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