find_fcpxml_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses search locations and that it looks for recent exports, but it does not clarify return format, sorting, whether the operation is read-only, or how 'recent' is determined beyond the unexplained 'days' parameter.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Search locations and file types are packed efficiently, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 simple file-search tool, the description covers the file types and default locations well enough to attempt a call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the unexplained 'days' parameter and undefined return behavior leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke it precisely.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely mentions the optional folder ('or a given folder') and never explains the 'days' parameter, its default of 14, or how recency is measured, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('recent FCPXML exports') with file extensions and default search locations, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as fcp_import_xml or fcp_export_project, so it falls 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?

The description implies usage by saying it searches recent exports in common folders or a given folder, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives. An agent can infer this is a discovery tool, but routing decisions remain underspecified.

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