cueprecise_frames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It transparently states that it updates frames.json, fetches low-resolution video under certain conditions, and makes no Gemini call. This gives the agent a clear picture of behavioral consequences, though it does not mention permissions or error handling.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences with no fluff or redundant information. It is well-structured: statement of action, conditional fallback, and explicit note about no Gemini call. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 description gives adequate context for an agent to understand the tool's core purpose, side effects, and a notable non-behavior (no Gemini). It lacks some details (e.g., what constitutes 'screen reference times' or output format), but given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, 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?

The schema already describes two of three parameters (at and max_frames), and the description adds minimal context by referencing 'screen reference times' which helps interpret 'at'. However, video_id is not described, and the description does not elaborate on parameter ranges or units. The description adds some value but not enough to exceed the baseline.

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 the tool's function: extracting frames at screen reference times and updating frames.json. It uses specific verbs ('extract', 'update') and identifies the resource (frames.json). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly stating it does not call Gemini, which helps differentiate it from other tools that might use Gemini.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions conditional behavior (e.g., fetching low-res video when video is absent or --skip-video is used) but does not state use cases or compare with sibling tools. There is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' instruction.

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