hyperframes_snapshot

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether files are written to disk, where, whether existing output is replaced, how long capture takes, or whether a render must precede it. The 'overwrite' parameter in the schema hints at destructive file behavior that the prose never surfaces.

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 — the action and output format come first. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but with seven parameters, 14% schema coverage, no annotations, and no mention of prerequisites or file-writing behavior, the description leaves the agent without enough to call this correctly on a non-trivial project.

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 only 14% (just the 'overwrite' param), yet the description says nothing about what 'at' (timestamp list), 'frames' (default 5), 'variables'/'variables_file', or 'timeout_ms' mean or how they interact. 'Key frames' loosely gestures at at/frames but supplies no semantics to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource — capturing key frames as PNG screenshots — plus a purpose (visual verification). It does not, however, distinguish this from near-siblings like hyperframes_still, hyperframes_capture, video_extract_frame, or video_export_frames, all of which plausibly do comparable frame extraction.

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?

'For visual verification' implies a review/QA context but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no prerequisites (does it need a rendered project first?), and no named alternative when the agent already has a frame-extraction tool. Usage must be inferred.

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