Export Sequence Review Frames

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: 'one bridge round trip' discloses performance behavior, 'file-verified' signals post-write validation, and the caveat that QE frames can differ from actual video exports is an important limitation an agent could not infer from structured data.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and constraints before the limitations. Slightly compressed in the second sentence, where multiple caveats are chained with semicolons, but efficient overall.

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?

With an output schema present the return values need not be explained, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage handle safety and parameters. The description closes the remaining gap with the still-capture limitations, though it still omits how this tool relates to its review-frame siblings.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented with defaults, minimums and maximums. The description restates the 2-24 range and the range concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate 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 states a specific verb (Export), resource (frames), scope (from an active-sequence range), and constraints (2-24 evenly spaced, file-verified) in one round trip. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings export_sequence_marker_review_frames and export_sequence_clip_review_frames, which an agent must otherwise infer from the schema.

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 review' implies the intended context, and the second sentence sets a boundary by listing what still capture does not verify. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance naming alternatives such as export_frame or capture_frame, leaving sibling selection ambiguous.

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