fcpxml_check_duration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (likely read-only), output format, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. The tool's action (verification) is implied but not detailed.

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, with a single sentence for purpose and two lines for parameters. No unnecessary text, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not hint at the output (e.g., boolean, report) or clarify what 'fits' means in practical terms. The context of output schema existence reduces the need for return value details, but the description could be more complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It briefly explains both parameters: 'path' as a file path and 'target_seconds' as a duration in seconds. This adds basic value beyond the schema titles but lacks details like file format validation or value constraints.

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 verifies if a timeline fits a target duration, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like fcpxml_timeline_stats or fcpxml_check_audio_levels, but 'fits' is ambiguous (exact match? within tolerance?) which slightly reduces clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the file must exist, or what 'fits' means. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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