Inspect Fcpxml Interchange

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it performs text-only parser warnings and reports structural counts without mutating, which reinforces the read-only nature beyond the annotations alone.

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?

A single dense sentence delivers the subject, scope, and purpose without filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause adds specific detail about what the inspection covers.

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 single well-documented parameter, the presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It states what is inspected and why, leaving no critical operational gap.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'path', and the schema already describes it fully as an existing local .fcpxml or .xml file. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('a local FCPXML document'), and enumerates the concrete aspects inspected: root version, sequence/clip counts, bounded asset declarations, and parser warnings. This clearly distinguishes it from neighboring tools like import_fcp_xml or export_as_fcp_xml.

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 phrase 'before deliberate Premiere import' gives a clear usage context as a pre-flight inspection step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent away from mutation or import tools.

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