fcpxml_list_clips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies read-only behavior (listing) but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or whether it modifies the file. No contradictions.

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 two clear sentences and a brief parameter list. No redundant or extraneous information, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 covers the core functionality well. It could be more complete by mentioning file validation or error handling, but it is largely sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: path is explained as 'Path to .fcpxml file', and project_name is noted as optional with a default behavior ('uses first project if empty'). This provides useful context.

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 'List', the resource 'all clips in the timeline', and the key output attributes 'timecodes, durations, and roles'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcpxml_list_markers or fcpxml_list_effects.

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 listing clips but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fcpxml_timeline_stats or fcpxml_parse. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the required file path.

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