timeline_contact_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the result is one image and that frames are evenly spaced across the edited timeline or a range, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the project, where the image is written, or what format is returned.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted wording. It is front-loaded with the core output concept, though it lacks an explicit action verb and reads more like an output summary than a complete instruction.

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 four parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits important invocation context such as units, defaults, output handling, and whether the operation is safe or destructive.

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 carry parameter meaning. It conceptually maps the four parameters by implying a project timeline, a range via start/end, and a count through evenly spaced frames, but it does not specify units, defaults, or the exact meaning of each named parameter.

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 clearly identifies the output as a contact sheet of evenly spaced frames from the edited timeline or a selected range. It is distinguishable from generic timeline tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_timeline or check_frames.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many sibling timeline/frame tools. The optional range is mentioned but not framed as a usage rule or decision point.

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