set_current_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions moving the timeline and evaluating the dependency graph, but it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it alters any persistent state, or what side effects (if any) occur. It also doesn't mention requirements like the presence of a scene or rig. The description is thin on behavioral details.

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 redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Move the timeline') and then specifies the precision ('exact frame/subframe'). It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is otherwise sparse. It does not explain what the dependency graph evaluation returns, any prerequisites (e.g., a loaded scene), or how this tool fits into a workflow with siblings. The lack of usage guidance and parameter details makes it incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's role and effects.

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 schema provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'frame/subframe' but doesn't explain what 'frame' represents (absolute timeline position?), units, or how 'subframe' is used (fractional interpolation?). It gives only a minimal hint that the combination allows an 'exact' position, leaving the agent to guess at the parameter meanings.

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 verb ('Move') and clearly identifies the resource ('timeline') and the action ('evaluate the dependency graph at an exact frame/subframe'). It is not a tautology, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'set_timeline', which could be confused conceptually. The purpose is understandable but could be more precise about the role of 'set_timeline' versus this tool.

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 provides no context on when to use this tool relative to siblings like 'set_timeline', 'insert_keyframe', or 'evaluate_animation'. It doesn't state when this is the appropriate choice (e.g., for evaluating a specific frame vs. setting a range) or when it should not be used. The agent would have to infer usage from the name and context.

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