Export Sequence Review Frames

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it specifies the 2-24 frame count, even spacing, file verification, and the single-round-trip efficiency. It also sets expectations with the sampling caveat, which is valuable since annotations only declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints as false.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first states the operation, constraints, and purpose; the second adds a critical limitation. All content is relevant and front-loaded.

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 fully documented input schema and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers range, count, file verification, and limitations. It could be slightly more complete by contrasting with the marker- and clip-specific review-frame siblings, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the input schema already documents output_dir, optional start/end_seconds, and frame_count with defaults, minimum, and maximum. The description reinforces the 'active-sequence range' idea but adds no new parameter-specific syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Export') and identifies the precise resource: '2-24 evenly spaced, file-verified frames from an active-sequence range.' It also states the intended purpose ('for visual review') and distinguishes itself from sibling review-frame tools by emphasizing even spacing and range-based sampling.

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 phrase 'for visual review' provides a clear intended use case, and 'it does not prove playback, audio, or editorial quality' explicitly tells the agent when the tool is not appropriate. It does not name sibling alternatives such as export_sequence_marker_review_frames, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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