FrameThrower

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that filters can be combined to narrow results, implying an AND-like filtering behavior. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint or openWorldHint annotations, and the read-only nature is already covered by annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and usage. It is well-structured and front-loads the key information without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Although the tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context such as how parameters combine (AND/OR), the meaning of the 'limit' parameter, or any edge cases. It mentions 'combine to narrow' but does not specify semantics, and does not address paging or result ordering, leaving some gaps for a complex search tool.

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?

The description lists all nine parameters by name, covering even those without explicit schema descriptions (e.g., director, year_min, year_max). It clarifies they are optional and combinable, but does not provide detailed per-parameter semantics beyond the names and a few schema examples. This partially compensates for the 44% schema coverage.

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's purpose: finding frames by specific cinematography craft attributes, listing examples like lens character, shot size, and director. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on craft attributes and explicitly mentions refining a search, which differentiates it from general search_frames and similarity-based find_similar.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool ('to refine a search precisely') and notes that all parameters are optional and combinable to narrow results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and open-world expectations. The description adds context on the input ('from a prior result') but doesn't disclose details like how similarity is computed or result ordering, though given the annotations the description does not contradict them and provides some added value.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the annotations provide some context, so the description is adequate. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., a list of frames) or how the 'similarity' is determined, which could be useful for an agent but is not strictly required.

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 0% and there are only two simple parameters (frameId and limit). The description does not elaborate on the semantics of these parameters beyond what schema provides (string id, number limit with bounds), but with such simple parameters the baseline of 3 is reasonable.

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 the tool finds frames similar to a given frame id and the use case of pulling more references, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_frames or get_frame_details. However, it could be more explicit about the 'visually/semantically' modes but it is still clear.

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 description gives a usage hint ('from a prior result', 'shortlisted') but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. It implies the tool is for extending a set of references, which is somewhat useful but could be more directive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond that by detailing the returned artifacts and noting the depth map is 'precomputed and free,' which informs cost/effort expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a practical use case without redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the returned data, clarifies the input, and gives a use case. The annotations cover safety, and no additional context seems necessary 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It clarifies that frameId identifies a single frame and that the depth map belongs to 'this frame,' but it does not explain where a valid frameId comes from or any format constraints. The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full metadata + preview thumbnail + full-resolution image URL + depth map URL + link') for a single frame id. This clearly differentiates from sibling search/find tools by focusing on a single existing frame rather than retrieval or discovery.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'use it when the user is generating images and needs the composition or camera geometry of this frame.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description correctly builds on them by explaining the return payload and the practical use of the depth map. It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by describing downloadable URLs and the intended downstream pipeline usage, though it does not mention zero-result behavior or relevance ranking.

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 search purpose and compacts a useful amount of return-value detail into one sentence. It is slightly long and run-on, but every clause earns its place by clarifying URLs or downstream usage, so it remains efficient and readable.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating metadata, preview thumbnail, full-resolution URL, depth map, and FrameThrower link. It omits minor invocation details such as result count defaults and relevance sorting, but those are secondary for a read-only search tool.

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 50%, with only query documented. The description enriches query semantics by enumerating searchable dimensions, adding meaning beyond the basic natural-language example. The limit parameter is not addressed in the description, but its schema constraints (1–40) make its behavior reasonably inferable.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('FrameThrower cinematography reference library'), and the dimensions of search ('concept, mood, color, composition, or scene'). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by describing a general natural-language search rather than craft-specific lookup, similarity matching, or detail retrieval.

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 description conveys when to use it implicitly by listing supported search dimensions, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria. Sibling names like find_similar and find_by_craft suggest boundaries, but the description itself does not guide an agent toward choosing this tool over them.

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