fcpxml_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that this is a summary/extraction of a file's contents rather than a mutation. However, it promises 'every clip' while the schema defaults max_items to 400, and it says nothing about how truncation, missing media, or malformed XML are reported.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the returned sections, with no filler. It could be tightened slightly by splitting the enumeration, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description does the right thing by enumerating the returned sections, which is the main completeness requirement here. Still missing: what a caller gets when the file is invalid or partially truncated, and how this differs from adjacent inspection tools.

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 coverage is 100%, including the .fcpxmld bundle alternative and the max_items cap semantics, so the description is not required to carry parameter detail. It mentions none of it, and the word 'every' arguably undercuts the max_items behavior documented only in the schema. Baseline 3.

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 specific verb (summarise) and resource (an FCPXML) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: projects, clips/titles/gaps with timeline position and lane, markers, media. That is concrete enough for an agent to know what comes back. It never distinguishes itself from siblings such as fcp_get_project (live app) or fcpxml_validate (checks the same file), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over fcp_get_project for inspecting a project, or over fcpxml_validate for checking an XML. An agent must infer 'this reads a file on disk, not the running app' purely from the name prefix. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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