Scene Extract Frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether frames are written to disk, returned as encoded data, cached, or whether the call is expensive or async. For a tool that produces image artifacts, the side-effect profile is a material omission.

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, so it is efficient. However, that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than serving as disciplined conciseness. Size is appropriate; content is thin.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But for a three-required-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the definition omits units for times and the nature of the output artifact (files vs. inline). What remains is not enough to call it correctly without trial and error.

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 0% and all three parameters are required, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'requested times' but never specifies units (seconds vs. frames vs. normalized 0-1), and says nothing about project_id or scene_id. The single most error-prone parameter detail, time units, is left entirely ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: extract PNG review frames at requested times. That reads clearly as a frame-grab operation, distinguishable from siblings like scene_render_preview, scene_render_final, or scene_review. It stops short of naming or contrasting those siblings, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 use this versus scene_render_preview, scene_inspect, or scene_review. The word 'review' hints at a QA/inspection workflow, but the agent must infer that this is for spot-checking specific moments rather than rendering a full sequence. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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