snapshot_frames

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool enqueues by default and returns a job_id, and that the wait parameter can block until completion. However, it does not disclose side effects like where frames are stored, permissions needed, or whether it modifies the project. This is partial transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently conveys the primary function and the default async behavior without fluff. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and compact.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the enqueue behavior and job_id but does not clarify what happens to the captured frames, how to retrieve them after completion, or whether any prerequisite steps (like project creation) are needed. The mismatch between 'composition' in the description and the 'project' parameter adds confusion.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions the default enqueue behavior which is already in the 'wait' parameter description. Since the schema already explains the parameters, a 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 action (capture PNG frames), the target (de una composición), and the purpose (control visual de calidad). It distinguishes itself from siblings like render_video by specifying still frames for QC rather than a video render. The default enqueue behavior is also mentioned, adding specificity.

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 implicitly suggests usage for visual quality control and references get_job/wait_job for handling the asynchronous job, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like render_video or state when not to use this tool. The default enqueue behavior is mentioned, but no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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