export_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool writes a full-resolution still and frames it as a visual verification step, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, file permission needs, or what the tool returns upon success/failure.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second provides the key usage scenario and rationale. Information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and motivation for use. It does not discuss error handling or return values, but the 'use to look at your work' directive implicitly fills that gap by pointing to the file itself as the artifact. This is sufficient for the tool's low complexity.

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% for both parameters (output_path and time_seconds). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, merely restating 'at a given time' which aligns with time_seconds. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the 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 states a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('full resolution still of the sequence at a given time'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like export_sequence (full export) and contact_sheet (grid of frames). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'after a grade or a reframe' and contrasts with 'trusting a tool's success flag'. It provides a concrete scenario and an implied alternative, though it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or a 'when not to use' condition.

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