fcpkit_handles

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/closed-world/non-destructive, so the description spends its budget well by defining the status vocabulary (PASS/INFO/REVIEW/FAIL) and the conservative rule that unknown resolves to REVIEW, never PASS. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations. It omits any note about ffmpeg availability affecting results when measuring.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the media check precedes the jump-cut check, matching execution order, and the status rule is placed last as a caveat. The parentheticals make sentences long but each clause carries information.

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 usefully supplies the status enum and its default semantics, which is the key return-value knowledge. Missing only the report shape (per-transition list vs aggregate) and whether ffmpeg is required for 'measure' — minor gaps for a read-only inspection tool with a fully documented schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'xml' and 'measure' are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of 'it would show removed material' loosely hints at what measurement is for, but adds no syntax, format, or cost information beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb ('check every transition') and enumerates the two things verified: media presence on each side (multicam, compound, retime aware) and dissolves landing on jump cuts. The opaquely named resource 'handles' is defined inline, so an agent can distinguish this from fcpkit_effects_check and fcpkit_timeline_diff. It stops short of a one-line summary of what a 'handle' problem means overall.

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?

Implies the tool is for pre-conformance validation of transitions, but never says when to reach for it versus fcpkit_effects_check or fcpkit_timeline_diff, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The triggering context must be inferred from the check list itself.

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