fcpxml_check_audio_levels

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'Flag clips' without specifying whether the tool is read-only, what constitutes an issue, or any side effects. This provides minimal behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a structured args line. Every word adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

While the tool has a simple interface (one parameter, clear purpose), the description omits any mention of output format or additional behavioral details. An output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving a gap in completeness.

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 adds that the 'path' parameter expects a .fcpxml file, which is helpful beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it does not specify format requirements or validation rules, offering only partial compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Flag' and the resource 'clips', specifying the action of identifying potential audio issues such as volume adjustments and missing audio. It distinguishes this tool from other fcpxml_check_* tools like fcpxml_check_duration or fcpxml_check_frame_rates.

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 such as fcpxml_check_duration or media_detect_silence. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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