get_asset_keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it reveals nothing beyond the operation itself: no return format, no error behavior, no authentication requirements, and no side effects. For a data-retrieval call, safety can be assumed from the verb 'Get', but the meaning of 'details' is left entirely unspecified.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb and resource appear first and the sentence contains zero wasted words. The brevity is structurally clean, though it is achieved at the cost of behavioral content assessed elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of guidance, yet it does not say what fields a keyframe detail response contains or how it differs from get_keyframe_public_url. The tool is simple and its parameters are fully documented, but an agent still cannot predict what it will receive or when to prefer it over the two overlapping keyframe siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% — both asset_id and keyframe_id have descriptions ('The asset UUID', 'The keyframe UUID') plus format and pattern constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, the schema already carries the load adequately.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific keyframe') and implies singular retrieval via the word 'specific'. It implicitly contrasts with list_asset_keyframes (plural listing) and get_keyframe_public_url (URL retrieval vs details), though it never names those siblings or enumerates what 'details' includes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the closely related siblings list_asset_keyframes or get_keyframe_public_url. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection hints are given; an agent must infer the intended usage purely from naming conventions.

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