fcp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The interrogative phrasing ('Is...installed/running') makes clear this is a non-mutating probe with no side effects, which is the key behavioral fact. However it does not say what happens if FCP is not installed (error vs. false), nor whether it launches the app as a side effect.

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 front-loaded clause with no waste; every element maps to a distinct returned fact. It is a sentence fragment without an explicit verb phrase, which costs it a point on structure but not on length.

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, read-only status probe with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it enumerates the three facts an agent would need to decide whether to proceed with fcp_launch or other operations. Only the not-installed/failure behavior is left unstated.

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 schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 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 names a specific resource (Final Cut Pro) and enumerates exactly what state is reported: installed/running, version, and frontmost status. It is distinguishable from fcp_launch (which starts the app) by being purely interrogative, though it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight probe to run before/after fcp_launch or before any timeline operation. There is no explicit 'call this when...' clause and no named alternative.

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