fcpxml_analyze_pacing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool analyzes pacing (a read operation), but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. It also does not describe side effects, file requirements, or output format (though an output schema exists). The description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 (two lines plus args), which is concise and focused. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) or include a brief note about output. It is close to optimal for a simple tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks mention of file prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, contain video clips) or any constraints. The description is moderately complete but could provide more context for the analysis.

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 single parameter 'path' is documented in the description as 'Path to .fcpxml file', which clarifies its purpose beyond the raw schema (which has 0% coverage). For a single parameter, this adds meaningful semantic context.

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 analyzes shot pacing, specifically average/median shot length and distribution histogram. It uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('shot pacing'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fcpxml_timeline_stats or fcpxml_check_duration.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The purpose is implied but not elaborated.

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