ae_capture_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return of a frame manifest but does not disclose side effects such as whether frames are written to disk, how many frames are captured in practice, or any failure behavior. For a tool that captures and potentially persists frames, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, scope, purpose, and return value efficiently.

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 parameters are well-covered by the schema, and the description states the output is a manifest, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks details about what the manifest contains or what happens to the captured frames. The description is adequate for a simple call but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only the 'multiple' framing and does not clarify semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline expectation.

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 states a specific verb ('capture'), a clear resource ('multiple composition frames'), a purpose ('visual QA'), and an explicit result ('return a frame manifest'). It also distinguishes itself from the singular sibling ae_capture_frame by emphasizing multiple frames, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 phrase 'multiple composition frames' implies this is for batch capture, and the sibling ae_capture_frame likely handles single frames, but the description never explicitly names an alternative or states when not to use this tool. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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