inspect_media

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully describe the shape of the result (evenly spaced frames, each labelled with a source timestamp), which is real behavioral disclosure, but it never states that the call is read-only/non-destructive, whether frame extraction is expensive, or what form the sheet is returned in.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces before the usage hint. Backticked parameter names and bracket notation for the range make it easy to scan; nothing is redundant.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across six parameters, the description should do more: it leaves the return medium ambiguous and omits `columns`. It covers the core concept adequately but not the operational details an agent needs.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `count` (evenly spaced), and the `start`/`end` interval, but leaves `columns`, `project`, and `asset_id` entirely undocumented, and never clarifies that a null `end` means running to the end of the asset. Three of six parameters gain no 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource pair: it produces a contact sheet of `count` evenly spaced frames from a source asset's [start, end] range. The phrase 'of a source asset' implicitly distinguishes it from the timeline-wide `timeline_contact_sheet` sibling, but it never names that sibling or `check_frames` 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?

'Use it to see what is in a clip' gives a general use case but no when-not guidance and no named alternatives, even though `check_frames` and `timeline_contact_sheet` are plausible competing choices. The guidance is implied rather than specified.

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