peek

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the cost model (image tokens), the return shape (one contact sheet, max 4x4 tiles, each labeled with its timestamp), and defaults via the times parameter. It stops short of stating safety/read-only semantics or what happens when the target is invalid.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with the action and the cost caveat before parameter semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter glosses run together in a single unbroken block rather than being cleanly separated.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the target, times, size, the cost model, and the return format, which is most of what an agent needs. The unexplained grid parameter and lack of stated failure behavior keep it from being wholly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: target is explained as video_id or a rendered version id, times as seconds or shot ids with omitted-meaning explanation, and size as the longest side of a tile. Only grid is left entirely unexplained, which is a notable gap for a parameter whose default is true.

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?

States a specific verb (SEE) and resource (frames), and immediately clarifies the output is a single labeled contact sheet, which separates it from text-oriented siblings like query or get_segment. It does not explicitly name or contrast against sibling tools such as overview or get_segment, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"costs image tokens; use sparingly" gives a clear caution about when to be cautious with this tool, which is real guidance. However, it names no alternative among the eight siblings (e.g., when to prefer get_segment or overview over peeking), so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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