blink_frames

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: auto-stretched thumbnails, per-frame metrics, suspect flagging, and page size. It does not fully describe the deferred job_id lifecycle or return format, but for a read-only review tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's operational purpose, and ends with a clear workflow instruction. There is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and several optional parameters, this description provides enough core context for a typical review use-case. It does not document the asynchronous job_id channel or exact output/display mechanics, but it is still sufficiently complete for the primary intended usage and follow-up via exclude_frames.

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 very low at 14%, so the description must compensate. It does map the main selection options: 'light group (or file list)' covers group_id/files and 'pages of up to 30 frames' gives some per_page/page context. However, thumb, columns, page, and the play between job_id and page are not meaningfully explained.

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 uses a specific action ('renders a contact sheet') and a clear resource ('light group or file list'), and lists both what it shows and what it flags. It also differentiates itself by naming the follow-up workflow with exclude_frames.

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 says the tool is a blink-style review 'before stacking' and gives the agent the next action: inspect the sheet, then pass bad indexes to exclude_frames. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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