fcp_get_libraries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement that FCP must be running, but does not describe other behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., if FCP is not running), return format (though output schema exists), or potential side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the prerequisite.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, stating the action and the sole prerequisite.

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 and an existing output schema, the description covers the key context (requires running FCP). It does not mention what happens if no libraries are open or if FCP is not running, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 schema provides full coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no further explanation is needed.

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 action ('Get all open libraries') and the application (Final Cut Pro). It is concise and distinguishes this tool from siblings like fcp_get_events or fcp_get_projects by specifically targeting libraries.

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 includes a key prerequisite (FCP must be running) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as fcp_open_library or other fcp_get_* tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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