ass_ms_from_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that fps resolution order is inherited from ass_frame_from_ms and lists the return keys, but omits what happens when fps/doc_id are absent or how defaults are chosen. For a pure conversion utility this is adequate but not rich.

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 single sentence stating the transformation, followed by a brief pointer and a returns block. It is tight and readable, though the returns block duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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 output schema exists, so enumerating return keys is redundant rather than harmful. However, for a computation tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters, the description does not say enough about inputs and default resolution. It is minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description hints at 'frame' and the fps resolution path, but never explains the fps or doc_id parameters or their null defaults. With zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 and transformation: converting a frame number to its start time in milliseconds. The direction is unambiguous and implicitly the inverse of the sibling ass_frame_from_ms, though it never names the sibling to differentiate. It is clear and concrete but leaves sibling routing to inference.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ass_frame_from_ms, ass_ms_from_timecodes, or ass_shift_times. The reference to ass_frame_from_ms is about fps resolution, not about choosing between tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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