scan_frames

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful caveat: these frames omit the project zoom overlay, so native previews should be compared. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how frames are returned (format/count), or any cost or rate concerns, leaving major behavioral gaps.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core inspection purpose leads and the overlay caveat follows. The trailing 'compare native previews too' is slightly loose but still earns its place as a usage cue.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should do more. It covers what is inspected and one important visual caveat, but omits the return shape (frame images vs. metadata) and any parameter guidance.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The mention of 'candidate speech cuts' loosely hints at startMs/endMs ranges, but filePath, sampleCount (default 6, max 20), and the units/bounds of the time parameters are entirely unaddressed.

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 ('inspect') and resource ('raw source frames') with a scoping qualifier ('around candidate speech cuts or distracting zooms'). It is clearly distinguishable from a generic media-info tool, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 phrase 'around candidate speech cuts or distracting zooms' implies a diagnostic context, gesturing at workflows tied to detect_silence and list_zooms. However, it never states when to use this instead of alternatives such as get_media_info, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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