cassette_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read'), the effect of contact_sheet=true ('tiles poster into one image, zero render'), and labels the output as a 'bounded text digest'. Missing details about side effects or data limits, but overall transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy or excess.

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?

Given the absence of parameter documentation and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the main usage but leaves parameter details unspecified. It could be more complete by explaining what the text digest includes or how detail/profile affect results.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for 4 parameters. The description only explains the contact_sheet parameter. The detail and profile parameters are not mentioned, leaving their semantics unclear. This adds value for one parameter but fails to compensate for the others.

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 states it 'reads the live Cassette timeline as a bounded text digest', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cassette_edit, cassette_ingest_media, and cassette_answer_question by focusing solely on reading state before answering.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call this before any statement about project state — never answer from memory.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and what to avoid, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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