Statonic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it returns a JPEG image, shows canvas layout including subject positions and obstructions, and is intended for preview purposes. It doesn't mention performance characteristics like processing time or file size limits, but covers the essential operational behavior.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and appropriate use.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does and when to use it. It explains the return format (JPEG image) and the visual information it provides. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating this is a read-only operation, though that's implied by the preview nature.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Render a composite preview frame'), the resource ('project at a specific time'), and the scope ('all video layers cropped and positioned, text overlays drawn on top'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on visual preview generation rather than editing or analysis tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this before repositioning elements so you can make informed placement decisions.' This provides clear context for usage and distinguishes it from tools that perform actual modifications like update_segment or add_text_segment.

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