fcpxml_timeline_stats

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

Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It states 'get' but does not disclose whether the file is read, modified, or any side effects. No mention of performance, file size limits, or that it is likely read-only.

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?

One sentence listing purpose plus a simple Args line. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the tool's function.

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?

Has output schema (not shown) but description implies output content. However, lacks context like preconditions (file must exist), error cases, or that it is a read-only analysis. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%. The description adds basic semantics by saying 'path' is a 'Path to .fcpxml file', but does not specify expected format, relative vs absolute, or validation. It is minimal but improves over schema alone.

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 gets 'comprehensive timeline statistics' and lists examples like duration, clip count, resolution, pacing. This distinguishes it from siblings such as fcpxml_parse or fcpxml_validate.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for specific sub-stats (e.g., fcpxml_check_duration).

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