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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the operation loads imagery into visual context and lists evaluation criteria, but says nothing about permissions, cost, rate limits, or whether the underlying data is modified. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded followed by timing, criteria, and re-run conditions. No filler or 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 2-parameter, no-output-schema workflow tool, the description covers purpose, workflow timing, judging criteria, and re-run conditions well. It stops short of describing what the loaded contact sheet looks like or any constraints, leaving a small gap.

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 both workspaceId and editId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or scoping detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Build one ordered contact sheet from every completed shot starting frame in an edit and load it into visual context.' This clearly separates it from the single-frame sibling inspect_edit_frame by scoping to the whole sequence, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 strong lifecycle placement ('after storyboard image generation and before the first shot video') and explicit re-run triggers ('after changing a shot image, shot order, or timing'). It lacks a named alternative or a 'when not to use' clause, which keeps it below a 5.

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