audit_device_frame

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's detection purpose. The description adds rich behavioral context: how to invoke each check, what it flags (object-fit:cover crop, Ken Burns pan/zoom, truncated edges), and even a DevTools snippet note. No contradictions.

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 into three checks and front-loads the purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose (e.g., repeating examples) and could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity. Still, it effectively communicates the tool's functionality.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description completely explains what each check does, how to invoke it, what inputs to provide, and what failures it catches. Examples enhance understanding. No missing information for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds significant value beyond the schema by grouping parameters into the three checks and explaining their purpose (geometry, motion, edge). It also clarifies the format for clips (first/last frame PNG paths) and how to use the geometry check with or without args.

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 detects cropped content in device-mockup frames, listing three specific checks (GEOMETRY, MOTION, EDGE). The verb 'detect' and resource 'device-mockup frames' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling auditing tools by focusing on frame cropping.

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 tells when to use the tool (to detect cropped content in device frames) and provides concrete examples (16:9 clip in 1.82-AR screen). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the context is clear.

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