find_missing_footage

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'find', which suggests a read-only operation, but does not specify side effects, permissions, or what counts as 'missing' (e.g., unlinked files). With no annotations, the description omits important behavioral nuance.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff, front-loads the key verb 'find'. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it could add a brief note on output usage without hurting conciseness.

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?

Given no parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a straightforward read purpose, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details that would make it fully helpful, such as whether results include file paths, whether it searches all project items, or how it pairs with other tools like 'collect_files'. It does not explain return format since no output schema exists, which is a gap.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the description is the sole source of semantics. It clearly states the scope 'in the project', which is adequate for a parameterless tool but leaves some ambiguity about 'missing' definition. Since there are no params, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know operationally.

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 uses a specific verb 'find' and resource 'missing footage items in the project', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It stands out among siblings like 'import_footage' and 'replace_footage' because it focuses on identifying gaps rather than manipulating assets, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus others or what to do with the results. It implies usage for auditing missing items, but lacks explicit context on preconditions (e.g., project must be open) or how it relates to 'collect_files' and 'reduce_project'.

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