set_frame

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context—it simply restates the action without explaining consequences (e.g., moving the playhead, invalidating certain states, or affecting rendering). It does not contradict the annotations, but it fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameter semantics. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, so it earns a middle score.

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's simple schema but the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is still too thin. It does not explain the impact of setting a frame, how the output looks, or any side effects. The lack of usage guidelines and parameter elaboration makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 one integer parameter 'frame' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'ke sebuah frame' (to a frame), which implies the parameter is a frame number, but it does not explain units, meaning, or default behavior. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage, as the description only faintly hints at the parameter's purpose.

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 'Lompat timeline ke sebuah frame' clearly states the action: jumping the timeline to a specific frame. It includes a specific verb ('jump') and resource ('timeline'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_frame or set_render_range. However, it lacks explicit mention of the parameter or scope, so it's not as detailed as the highest level.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or which sibling tools to consider instead. This is a clear gap given the many related timeline/animation tools available.

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