akai_frame_extract

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed. The description lacks any indication of side effects, authentication needs, or output behavior. Since there are no annotations to offset this, the tool is a black box.

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 extremely short but omits essential information. This is under-specification, not conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place; here the single sentence repeats the tool name.

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 no output schema and no description of return values, and given the tool's likely complexity (frame extraction from media), the description is completely inadequate. The agent has no way to understand what the tool returns or how to use the parameters effectively.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are generic ('CLI arguments to pass to the operator', 'Optional stdin data'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description merely echoes the tool name 'akai-frame-extract' and adds a vague category 'media'. It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., extract frames) or clarify the resource involved, making it a tautology with minimal informational value.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of its many siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without direction.

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