resolve_describe_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action and mentions the 'detail' parameter, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, involves network calls or latency, or has any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a brief parameter hint—and front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 has a simple input (one optional parameter) and an output schema that defines the return value, so the description does not need to explain output details. It covers the essential action and parameter guidance, but could be slightly more complete by mentioning any prerequisites (e.g., having a loaded timeline) or the nature of the caption generation. Overall, it is sufficient for the low complexity.

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?

The description adds meaning to the single 'detail' parameter by specifying the allowed values ('short or normal'), which the schema does not include as an enum. This goes beyond the schema's generic string type and helps the agent select an appropriate value.

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 frame to Moondream) and the output (caption), distinguishing it from sibling vision tools like resolve_detect_in_frame (detection) and resolve_ask_about_frame (question answering). The verb and resource are specific, making it 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?

The description implies a straightforward use case (getting a caption for the current frame) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusionary or comparative guidance is given, but the context is clear enough that an agent could infer its purpose.

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