match_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it 'gets source media info' but does not specify what info is returned (e.g., metadata, file path). The lack of output schema exacerbates this, leaving agents uncertain about the response format.

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 two sentences long, with the first conveying the core functionality and the second providing context. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 retrieves frame info and has no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'source media info' includes (e.g., timecode, source clip name), leaving a significant gap for agents to understand the return value.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the input schema (track_type with enum, track_index with default values). The description adds no extra meaning; it only references 'track' indirectly. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool retrieves source media info for the frame at the current playhead on a specific track. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'capture_frame' (export to file) and 'freeze_frame' (apply effect), as it focuses on obtaining metadata for match frame operations.

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 mentions it is 'useful for match frame operations,' providing a hint of usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_clip_at_playhead' or 'get_clip_properties', and no when-not-to-use advice.

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