get_frame_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe, though that is implied by 'Get'. It lists the return fields, which is helpful, but does not disclose any potential side effects or prerequisites, such as requiring an active session.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then enumerate the return fields. Every word is informative with no fluff.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context by listing the returned fields. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., a session must exist) or that the tool returns the current state of the playback. Still, for a simple getter, it is reasonably complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered. The description adds value by explicitly listing the output fields, which helps the agent understand what data it will receive. This goes beyond the schema, which only indicates no parameters.

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 'Get the full frame range and current state as JSON', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_frame, get_fps, and get_in_out_points by returning a composite of multiple frame-related properties.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool should be used when all frame range and state information is needed at once, whereas get_frame or get_fps might be used for individual values. This lack of direction could lead to suboptimal tool selection.

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