match_frame

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

The description claims to 'get' media info, suggesting a read operation, but annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying possible side effects. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action, such as whether the playhead moves or state changes occur. Given that annotations provide no explicit safety info, the description fails to compensate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second gives a use case. No unnecessary words, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain what 'source media info' includes (e.g., file path, timecode), leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. While adequate for a basic list, it lacks completeness for agent decision-making.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context ('current playhead on a specific track') but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline 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's action ('Get source media info for the frame at the current playhead on a specific track') and its purpose ('Useful for match frame operations'). It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform different operations like clip manipulation or source monitoring.

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 a usage context ('Useful for match frame operations') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No alternative tool names are given, leaving guidance mostly implied.

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