fcp_get_app_state

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

The description discloses that the tool returns version and frontmost status. Since no annotations exist, it carries the full burden and does so clearly. It could mention prerequisites like the app needing to be running, but the behavior is otherwise transparent.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It states what is returned, but could briefly note that the app must be running, though the output schema may cover that.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 gets FCP application state, specifically version and frontmost status. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like fcp_is_running by mentioning the specific state fields.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fcp_is_running. Usage is implied as a general state query, but no context or exclusions are provided.

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