ass_frame_from_timecodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the dependency on workspace.timecodes, the fallback to frame rate, that the method field reports which path was taken, and that both coordinates are returned to keep the pair unambiguous. It does not state read-only/purity explicitly, but the behaviour described is clearly a deterministic lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured Args/Returns sections. The RST double-backtick markup and the explicit Returns line add some noise, but every sentence (fallback rule, method field, unambiguous pair) carries real 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the docstring lists the returned keys anyway. Between the fallback rule, the method discriminator, and per-parameter notes, the agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling differentiation against the other frame/ms/timecode converters is missing.

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, and it does: frame is defined as a frame number and doc_id is explained as the document id needed only for the fps fallback. That conditional caveat is the key semantic the schema lacks, though the frame parameter's accepted range/format is left implicit.

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+resource: it returns the start time of a given frame, resolved through the loaded timecodes file with an fps fallback. This is more precise than a bare 'convert frame' but it never names its closest siblings (ass_ms_from_frame, ass_frame_from_ms, ass_ms_from_timecodes), so the agent must infer the split from context.

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?

It explains the conditional path clearly: timecodes are honoured when a file is loaded, otherwise the document/workspace frame rate is used, and doc_id is only needed for that fps fallback. That tells the agent when each input matters, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X' routing statement against the other conversion siblings.

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