watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool tracks shot changes and framing path, implying analysis rather than output creation. However, it does not mention whether this tool modifies state, requires specific permissions, or what system constraints apply.

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 sentence with no waste, front-loading the core action and output. It is appropriately succinct.

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 deals with framing paths and output shape, the absence of an output schema is notable. The description does not explain what 'framing path' means or what the tool returns, and the sibling tools list is large with no differentiation hints. The description lacks sufficient context for effective tool selection.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'track shot changes and the subject' which implies the 'subject' and 'source' parameters but adds no extra detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('track shot changes and the subject') and a clear resource ('source'), producing a 'framing path'. While it distinguishes the tool's purpose, it could better differentiate from siblings like 'inspect' or 'hear' that might also analyze a source.

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 such as 'inspect', 'hear', or 'preview'. The description does not mention non-use cases, context, or prerequisites.

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