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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: frames are scaled to 640px wide, there's a limit of ≤6 frames per call for speed, and it returns images that Claude can see and describe. It does not mention error handling, file format support, or performance beyond speed, but covers essential operational constraints.

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, each adding value: the first states the core purpose, the second gives usage context, and the third provides important constraints. It is front-loaded with the main function and wastes no words.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, usage, key constraints, and output format. However, it lacks details on error cases, supported video formats, or exact return structure, which could be useful for an agent. No output schema exists, so some gaps remain.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning the max of 6 frames for 'times_sec', but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies for 'video_path' or timestamp details. 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 frames', 'return as images') and resources ('from a video file'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_video_info' or 'get_reference_frames' by focusing on frame extraction rather than metadata or reference frames. It explicitly mentions what the tool does and what it returns.

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 this tool ('to visually inspect video content') and mentions Claude's ability to describe frames, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for visual inspection rather than other video analysis tasks.

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