validate_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose one behavioral trait beyond structure: the DTD check is conditional on Final Cut Pro being installed, so results vary by environment. It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, whether problems are reported or auto-corrected, or what form the findings take.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the checks enumerated in a compact list. No filler, nothing buried; every clause adds information.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and one environment dependency. The remaining gap is whether it merely reports issues or alters the timeline, and what it returns — notable given the absence of annotations.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing in the schema the description needed to compensate for. No parameter detail is added because none exists to add.

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?

Specific verb-and-resource ('Check the edited timeline') followed by an enumerated scope: references, gaps/overlaps, frame alignment, and FCPXML DTD conformance. This clearly separates it from neighbors like get_timeline, open_timeline, or preview_frame. It stops short of naming a sibling it is *not*, which keeps it off 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 phrase 'the edited timeline' implies it should be run after edits are made, and the parenthetical '(when Final Cut Pro is installed)' gives one concrete precondition. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g., before save_timeline, before fcp_export_project) and no when-not conditions.

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