cinematic_export

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

Given no annotations, the description explains behavior: crop-pan, two modes, dependencies for cinematic mode (Remotion+react). However, it omits details like whether it modifies files, permissions needed, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with paragraphs, an example workflow, and clear sections. It is not overly verbose but could be tightened slightly. Each sentence adds value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and workflow, but lacks info on output location or return value. With no output schema, it would benefit from specifying what the tool returns or saves. Adequate for moderate complexity.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds value by noting default fps depends on format (12 for GIF, 30 for MP4) and clarifies zoom targets interaction area. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 converts .webm to GIF/MP4 with cinematic crop-pan effects, using the phrase 'Convert a recorded .webm to GIF or MP4 with cinematic crop-pan effects.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_to_gif and convert_to_mp4 by highlighting the virtual cameraman effect.

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?

Provides a concrete example workflow (record_page, interact_page, stop_recording) and describes two rendering modes, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like convert_to_gif or smart_export. Guidance is clear but could be more comprehensive.

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