find_missing_footage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action ('find') but does not reveal whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies the project state, how results are returned, or what constitutes 'missing' footage. The description lacks critical behavioral context.

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 description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it may be overly terse, sacrificing useful context for brevity. While no words are wasted, additional information could be included without compromising 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 the tool has no parameters or output schema, the description is the only source of contextual information. It fails to explain what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or any side effects. For a simple tool, this is insufficient for an agent to know how to use the result effectively.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not add parameter semantics because there are none to describe. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description neither adds nor detracts from the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find all missing footage items in the project'. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('missing footage items'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'replace_footage' or 'import_footage'. The scope is well-defined and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. For example, it does not clarify whether the tool scans the entire project or only selected items, or what to do after finding missing footage. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are given.

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