Folha de contato (bake-off de modelos)

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

With only readOnlyHint=false provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose that it renders a sheet per video and returns images plus an analysis of each clip, plus the output-directory default. It omits cost/time characteristics of rendering multiple videos and any write/permission details, so it is only partially transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose; the model examples add specificity without much bloat. Slightly dense but efficient.

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 mutation/generation tool with 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description should explain grid controls, projeto behavior, and multi-video handling. It only states that images and per-clip analysis are returned.

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 20% (only saida_dir is documented) across 5 parameters. The description implies a grid but never explains linhas, colunas, videos array semantics, or projeto, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Gera') plus resource ('folha de contato / grade de quadros') and its purpose of comparing takes or models, so an agent knows what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like extrair_frames or extrair_quadro, leaving the boundary between them implicit.

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 use case is implied through 'para comparar takes ou modelos ... e escolher o que melhor espalha a mudança', which gives context for when the tool fits. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor any routing to alternative siblings, so the agent must infer.

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