Statonic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's actions (extraction, analysis, saving) and mentions Claude's role, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or performance characteristics like rate limits. It adequately covers the core behavior without rich context.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: stating the tool's purpose, outlining the process, and providing usage context. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and process but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with Claude. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with this level of functionality.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the purpose of 'category' or 'keyframe_count' in more detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('extract keyframes', 'returns frames', 'saves metadata') and resources ('video clip', 'images', 'JSON file'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on analysis and metadata generation rather than operations like adding segments or searching libraries.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('to understand what's in a clip before selecting it for a project'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. This gives adequate guidance without full exclusion criteria.

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