Generate a labelled grid of up to 48 animation frames to review motion and consistency at a glance.
See many frames at once: a labelled grid of frames (max 48) to review motion and consistency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| step | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| columns | No | ||
| cell_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and covers very little beyond the visual layout. It does not say whether the call is read-only or side-effect free, what form the result takes (rendered image versus data), how ranges exceeding 48 frames are handled (truncation, sampling, or error), or what the default step is.
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?
A single tight sentence with the useful detail (max 48, labelled grid) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why key parameter and behaviour details are absent.
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?
A five-parameter, all-optional tool with no annotations and no output schema leaves the description responsible for range/default semantics and for what the returned artifact is, neither of which it addresses. The max-48 note is helpful but not enough for an agent to call it confidently with a non-default range.
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% across five parameters, and the description supplies almost no compensating meaning beyond the implicit frame-count cap. Start/end/step and columns/cell_size are guessable from their names, but there is no stated default behaviour for omitted values or interaction between step and the 48-frame limit.
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 states a concrete output artifact (a labelled grid of frames, max 48) and its purpose (reviewing motion and consistency), which goes beyond restating the name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with neighbouring preview tools such as view_image, canvas_snapshot, or export_animation_frames, so the boundary is inferable rather than stated.
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 stated intent 'to review motion and consistency' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use export_animation_frames for full-resolution output, view_image for a single frame). The max-48 cap is the only hard constraint given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.