go_to_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Jump to a specific frame'. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., updating viewport, changing selection), frame indexing (0-based vs 1-based), or behavior on out-of-range values. This is minimal at best.

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 extremely concise—one statement and one argument line—with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action. While short, it communicates the core functionality efficiently.

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 simple tool this might suffice, but critical context is missing: frame indexing (0 or 1-based), what happens if the frame is out of range, and whether any side effects occur (e.g., timeline update). Given no output schema and no annotations, an agent lacks enough information to handle edge cases confidently.

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 provides 'frame: Frame number.' which adds a minimal semantic beyond the schema's type and default. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is helpful but still thin—it does not clarify units, range, or indexing. It presents the obvious without enriching it.

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 verb 'Jump' and the resource 'specific frame in the timeline', making the action clear. It is distinct from siblings like set_animation_range or set_fps, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is transparent and immediately understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context such as prerequisites or typical workflows. The description simply states the action without indicating scenarios where it is the appropriate choice over other timeline-related tools.

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