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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds substantial operational detail: sheets are paged, the caption reports what remains, cells are numbered, and the structured result maps numbers to asset keys for regenerate. Pagination and result-shape disclosure are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the view options, then the return format, then the paging rule — a sensible order. Slightly padded by the motivational closer ('Approving sight-unseen defeats the checkpoints'), which restates the preceding instruction, but overall dense and purposeful.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (labeled contact sheet, numbered cells, key mapping) and how to traverse it. Minor gaps remain: project_id semantics and behavior when a view has no assets yet.

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 only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it explains what each 'view' enum value produces, clarifies that storyboard/clips are 'by scene,' and explains paging behavior for 'page.' Only 'project_id' is left without any description-level meaning.

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 and resource ('See the film's current work inline') and enumerates the exact view modes (cast, outfits, locations, objects, storyboard, clips) with what each depicts. That specificity separates it cleanly from siblings like regenerate or get_status, and it even names the downstream tool (regenerate) the contact sheet feeds.

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?

Gives explicit workflow context: 'look at every page before a checkpoint' and 'Approving sight-unseen defeats the checkpoints,' which tells the agent this is the pre-approval inspection step. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of a full 5.

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