detect_flash_frames

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'severity categorization' but does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies the file, or requires specific permissions. As a detection tool, it likely does not alter data, but this is not explicit.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It avoids fluff but omits details like the input file format (FCPXML), which could be helpful for quick understanding.

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 tool has 3 parameters (all documented) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level purpose but lacks details about the output format (e.g., returns a list of clips with severity). An agent may need to infer expected 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds 'severity categorization' which maps to the threshold parameters, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 the tool finds ultra-short clips (flash frames) that are likely errors with severity categorization. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('ultra-short clips'), distinguishing it from siblings like detect_duplicates or detect_gaps.

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 implies usage for detecting flash frames errors but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., fix_flash_frames for correction). No exclusions or context-specific advice given.

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