get_frames

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries some disclosure responsibility. It mentions that frames are full-size and timestamps must be exact, which are useful behavioral hints. But it does not say what happens for unknown sessions, missing timestamps, or invalid frame requests, so transparency is partial.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and resource, then adds the key constraint. Every word contributes.

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 two-parameter read-like tool, the description is minimal but adequate for basic invocation. However, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should clarify error cases, return format, or relationship to sibling tools; it does none of that, leaving some gaps in practical usage context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. While 'timestamps' is partially explained by 'exact timestamps', sessionId is never mentionedcars and the description gives no guidance on timestamp units or the 1-16 item constraint. This leaves the agent under-informed beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('full-size frames'), and a constraint ('exact timestamps in a completed recording'). It is distinct enough from the sibling tools, which are mostly about session lifecycle and window listing, though it does not explicitly contrast with inspect_clip.

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 phrase 'in a completed recording' gives some guidance about when to use the tool: only after recording has finished. However, it does not state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, leaving the when-to-use guidance mostly implied.

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