frame

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the dual set/query behavior but omits important details such as what happens when querying before any frame is set, whether setting affects the animation state, or any error conditions. This is extremely thin for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, clear schema, output schema present), the description is minimally viable but still leaves gaps. It does not mention that setting/queries apply to a movie frame, prerequisites, or the format of the query result. The description is adequate for a trivial tool but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description explicitly explains that omitting 'frame_number' queries the current frame, while providing it jumps to that frame. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Sets or queries') and resource ('current frame'). It distinguishes itself from sibling navigation tools like 'forward' and 'backward' by indicating that this tool sets/gets an arbitrary frame rather than stepping through frames.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a movie must be loaded) or when choosing this over sibling commands like 'mplay' or 'forward' is appropriate. The schema is the only source of usage context, not the description.

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