Capture Frame

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

With annotations present, the description adds useful context: the frame is returned as inline image data and QE capture may differ from actual video exports. That is a genuine fidelity caveat. It does not, however, explain the readOnlyHint=false annotation or any side effects/permissions, leaving that 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action and return format front-loaded before the fidelity caveat. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed in prose, and the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. The main omission is sibling routing versus export_frame, which would help in this dense tool list.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter (time_seconds) is fully documented in the schema, including the playhead fallback. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (capture), resource (current frame), and the return modality (inline image data) clearly, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling export_frame or export_sequence_review_frames, which likely also yield frames.

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 a clear use boundary: for still-image review only, and it cannot verify temporal animation. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. export_frame) for cases where a saved file rather than inline data is wanted.

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