fcpxml_detect_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does (finds duplicate clips) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies the file, requires specific file permissions, or provides any side effects. The output behavior is not described.

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 plus an Args line), but it lacks structure such as a clear breakdown of behavior, output, or examples. It is not verbose, but could be improved by adding essential context while staying brief.

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 the tool has one required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (but not detailed), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output is (e.g., a list of duplicate clips), whether the file is modified, or any other contextual information needed for correct invocation.

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%, and the description adds minimal value by stating 'Path to .fcpxml file' for the parameter 'path'. This is nearly redundant with the parameter name and title, offering little additional semantic meaning.

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 'Find' and the resource 'clips that use the same source media', making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like detect_gaps or check_frame_rates. However, it lacks a title and could be more descriptive.

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 (e.g., other fcpxml detection tools like fcpxml_detect_flash_frames or fcpxml_detect_gaps). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.

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