map_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully explains accepted render_dir forms and the talk disambiguation rule, but it does not describe failure modes, permission requirements, output format, or what happens when the time is not present in the cutmap.

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 short, front-loads the conversion purpose, and then gives focused usage details for render_dir and talk. There is little wasted text, though the formatting could be slightly tighter.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the core conversion and render_dir/talk behavior. It remains incomplete because project and project_dir semantics are omitted and return behavior is not described.

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 0% with 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for time, to, render_dir, and talk, including an example time format and the multiple-talks condition, but it does not explain project or project_dir, leaving key parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: converting a time from rendered video time to source time, or back when to="output". It is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from any sibling tool, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the two conversion directions via to="output" and gives conditions for render_dir and talk, which implies usage. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or what preconditions must hold beyond the render_dir/talk note.

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