gif_frames_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output (frames with index, delay, FPS) but does not mention potential errors, performance implications, or whether the operation is non-destructive. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key output details. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output fields. It could be slightly more complete by noting the return structure (e.g., array of objects) but is adequate for straightforward usage.

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 single parameter 'path' is self-explanatory. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so a baseline score 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 tool lists all frames of a GIF with specific output details (index, delay, FPS). It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (frames of a GIF) and effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like gif_info and gif_frame.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to enumerate frames and their metadata. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear and the sibling tools (gif_info, gif_frame) are obvious from their names, providing sufficient guidance for a simple tool.

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