fcpxml_detect_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral context. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the file is invalid, or if any modifications occur. For a detection tool, this is a notable gap.

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 concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with intent. It could be slightly more informative, but it achieves brevity without losing essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to define what 'gaps' means or provide any context about the tool's behavior or return format, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 explicitly documents the 'path' parameter as 'Path to .fcpxml file', adding meaning beyond the bare parameter name. With 0% schema coverage, this compensation is effective and clear, though the parameter is simple.

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 finds gaps in the timeline, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not define what constitutes a gap (e.g., time gaps or missing media), and the distinction from sibling 'fcpxml_fill_gaps' is minimal.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fcpxml_fill_gaps' or 'fcpxml_check_media_links'. There is no context on prerequisites or constraints.

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