fcp_playback

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the action values without describing side effects, state changes, or error conditions. The impact on FCP state is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 very short and to the point. The 'Args:' header is slightly redundant but does not significantly reduce conciseness. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple playback control tool, the description covers the essential function. However, it lacks information about the output/return value (despite an output schema existing) and does not mention any state changes or feedback, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description lists all four allowed values for the 'action' parameter, providing critical context that the schema lacks (schema has no enum). The note about 'toggle' mapping to the space bar adds practical value beyond the schema definition.

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 'Control FCP playback' clearly states the tool's function and the specific resource it acts on. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the unique name and narrow scope make differentiation straightforward.

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 alternatives like fcp_keyboard_shortcut or fcp_menu_command. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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