fcpxml_detect_flash_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'finds clips shorter than max_frames' but does not specify whether it modifies the project, what the output format is, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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, consisting of two sentences followed by an Args section. It front-loads the purpose and provides parameter descriptions without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate context: it identifies the input parameters and the filtering criterion. However, given the lack of annotations, more detail on behavior (e.g., read-only, output format) would improve completeness. The presence of an output schema partially compensates.

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 explains both parameters: 'path: Path to .fcpxml file' and 'max_frames: Maximum frame count to flag (default 2)'. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this adds essential meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it could be more detailed (e.g., path format or constraints on max_frames).

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 'Find clips shorter than max_frames (potential flash frames / accidental edits).' It specifies the verb ('Find'), the resource ('clips'), and the scope ('shorter than max_frames'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'fcpxml_fix_flash_frames' and '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 implies usage for detecting flash frames or accidental edits but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fcpxml_fix_flash_frames' or 'fcpxml_check_duration'. No 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.

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