fcpkit_brief

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by describing the brief's structure, the coverage line "timed items shown n/n", and the typical 15-25x size reduction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is dense with useful detail rather than filler. It is somewhat run-on and could be structured more readably, but every clause contributes to explaining the brief's contents.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does thoroughly: symbol table, per-cut lines, nested captions/titles/overlays/sounds/transitions/markers, lane table, density, and coverage line. Combined with the fully described input schema, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all six parameters, including start, end, ids, lang, and detail. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that non-default effects and captions are surfaced in the output.

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 verb and resource: read a timeline as a compact editorial brief instead of raw XML. The phrase "call this first" and the detailed brief contents make its role clear and distinguish it from raw XML inspection and downstream editing tools.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance with "call this first" and positions itself against raw XML. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer siblings such as fcpkit_timeline_diff or fcpkit_filmstrip, so alternatives beyond raw XML are left implicit.

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