resolve_ask_about_frame

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'send' but does not reveal whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies any state, what side effects occur, or what the response entails. An agent cannot infer safety or expected behavior from this text.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It conveys the essential function without unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness and clear structure.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema (not shown but indicated true). The description does not explain what 'current frame' means or any prerequisites, but the operation is self-explanatory enough. With no annotations, more context would be helpful, but the minimal description is borderline sufficient for such a basic action.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the single parameter 'question' via 'visual question answering,' making the parameter obvious, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter's format, constraints, or examples. For a single trivial string parameter, this is minimally adequate.

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 action: 'Send the current frame to Moondream for visual question answering.' It specifies a verb, a resource (current frame), and the purpose (VQA). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like resolve_describe_frame, the intended function is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The description is purely functional and gives no context for decision-making.

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