fcpkit_effects_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is met. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the resolution sources it consults and the four result classifications (MISSING/REVIEW/OK/INFO), which is real behavioral information not encoded anywhere else given there is no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoped by the resolution sources. The telegraphic style ('Motion templates (src/uid files)', 'MISSING/REVIEW/OK/INFO per effect') is dense but earns its space; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source for return semantics, and it gives labels without definitions — an agent cannot tell what distinguishes REVIEW from INFO or what actions each implies. The core scope is adequately covered, but the ambiguous status vocabulary leaves a real gap for interpreting results.

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%, with both 'xml' (path to .fcpxml/.fcpxmld bundle) and optional 'templates_dir' fully documented inline. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('every <effect> resource'), and enumerates the three resolution paths covered: Motion templates, FCP built-ins, and FxPlug UUIDs. The sibling tools all operate on other resources (libraries, handles, timeline diff, filmstrip), so there is no realistic confusion, though the description never explicitly routes against them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight validation for effect resolution in a .fcpxml file. There is no explicit 'when to use this vs X', no stated prerequisites (e.g. FCP installed, registry accessible), and no mention of what to do with REVIEW vs MISSING results.

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