fcp_library_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It signals read-only behavior via 'read from Final Cut Pro', which is useful, but omits whether FCP must be running, whether automation permissions are required, and what happens when no libraries are open.

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 tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for the information it withholds, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness flaw.

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 zero-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks the return shape (how libraries, events, and projects are nested) and the preconditions for the call. The description gives a useful high-level picture but stops short of what's needed to act confidently.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or selection input is needed to get the full overview.

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 specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('open libraries, their events and projects') read from Final Cut Pro, which is far more informative than the bare name 'overview'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fcp_status or get_timeline, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this versus fcp_status, open_timeline, or get_timeline, and no stated prerequisites. The parenthetical '(read from Final Cut Pro)' hints at a non-mutating inspection use case but names no alternatives or exclusions.

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