Create auto montage

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior; the description adds valuable context about scanning folders, building the TOP network, exposing custom pars, emitting a state_out CHOP, and handling a missing folder gracefully. This goes beyond the annotations and provides actionable 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 dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains technical jargon that may be more than necessary, but every sentence adds meaningful information about behavior, exposed pars, and error handling, making it useful without being overly verbose.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers the tool's function, internal architecture, exposed interface (pars and state_out), and failure handling. It does not explicitly state a return value, but the created container and output CHOP are inferable from the context.

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?

All 14 parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds architectural context linking mode and clock to the CHOP execution logic, but it does not significantly redefine parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool 'build a self-running clip montage' from a folder, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the auto-advance/montage structure, including the TOP network and CHOP-based brain.

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 clear usage context: point at a folder to build a montage, and it explains behavior when the folder is missing. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like create_video_player or create_clip_launcher, nor does it state when not to use it.

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