Export Sequence Marker Review Frames

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

Annotations already provide safety hints, and the description adds meaningful context by stating the side effect is limited to writing image files while leaving Premiere markers untouched. It also discloses the one-request batching and file-verified frame nature, though overwrite behavior and empty-marker cases are not addressed.

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 dense, well-structured sentences: the first front-loads the action and constraints, and the second removes ambiguity about side effects. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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?

With a fully documented schema, output schema, and annotations, the behavior-focused description gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around empty-marker behavior and file overwrite semantics, but these do not block correct use.

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 limit defaults, output_dir naming, start/end bounds, and marker_type. The description adds general context but no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 names a specific verb and resource: exporting file-verified composite frames at active-sequence marker positions, capped at 24 and packaged in one bridge request. It also differentiates the tool from marker-editing siblings by explicitly stating it does not add, update, or remove Premiere markers.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('marker-driven review') and explicitly scopes behavior to reading markers and writing image files, excluding marker mutation. It does not name alternative export tools such as export_sequence_review_frames or export_frame, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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