fcpxml_qc_report

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

Description lists checks but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations (none provided). No mention of read-only nature, output format, or side effects. Output schema exists but description does not leverage it.

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?

Description is concise with bulleted checks and argument line. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating output info), but overall efficient.

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?

Description omits details about the report output (format, content) despite output schema existing. For a multi-check tool, more context is needed.

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 only parameter 'path' has clear description 'Path to .fcpxml file' which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only specification. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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?

Description clearly states 'Generate a comprehensive quality check report for the timeline' and lists specific checks (validation, gaps, flash frames, duplicates, pacing), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform individual checks.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. While the composite nature implies usage over individual checks, it does not contrast with sibling tools like fcpxml_validate, fcpxml_detect_gaps, etc.

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