view_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that onion shows the previous frame at 40% opacity, which is a behavioral trait. It doesn't mention error handling or authentication, but as a rendering tool, the main behavior is adequately described.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the main function, and the second provides context and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 simple 3-parameter rendering tool, the description adequately covers the rendering method, a behavioral feature (onion), and usage context (distinction from preview_gif). It does not explain return values or error conditions, but given the absence of output schema and annotations, it provides sufficient information for correct invocation.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning to the undocumented 'onion' parameter by explaining its effect. For 'frames' and 'doc_id', it adds no new information beyond the schema. Thus, it compensates for the missing schema description on one parameter.

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 renders frames as a horizontal strip, specifies the onion effect, and distinguishes itself from preview_gif as a tool for verifying motion rather than previewing. It references a specific sibling tool and provides a clear purpose.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to verify motion, not preview_gif, providing a when-to-use and when-not-to-use guideline. It also mentions per-frame view as an alternative, but doesn't elaborate on when to choose that over this tool. Overall, it gives clear context for usage.

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