cassette_timeline

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. It reveals that the tool is a live read, that contact_sheet=true performs zero-render tiling and saves a local file, and that the returned URI must be URL-encoded because raw paths may contain spaces. This is strong, useful transparency, though it does not cover authentication or error behavior.

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?

Every sentence carries meaningful guidance: what the tool reads, when to use it, what contact_sheet does, and exactly how to format the output in Hermes TUI. Despite covering multiple instructions, the description stays compact and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

The description is strong for usage and output formatting, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, for a tool with four parameters and zero schema descriptions, leaving detail and profile undefined is a meaningful gap. The agent can still call the tool with only the required session_id, but full contextual understanding is incomplete.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does explain contact_sheet's effect well, but it says nothing about detail or profile, and session_id is only implicitly understood from the tool's purpose. The description does not give enough semantic context for the full parameter set.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the live Cassette timeline as a bounded text digest (CTL).' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like cassette_ingest_media or cassette_edit, and the term 'live' plus 'bounded text digest' gives a precise picture of what the tool returns.

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 description gives an explicit usage rule: 'Call this before any statement about project state — never answer from memory.' It also explains when the contact_sheet option matters and how to present the resulting URI. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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