chain_frames

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

Discloses the core behavior (frame-to-frame handoff across an episode) and the postpaid-by-usage billing model, both beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations, it does not say whether the operation mutates existing frame assignments, whether it is asynchronous, or what it returns, leaving the side-effect and safety profile unclear.

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 front-loads the mechanism and benefit, then appends the billing note. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of the schema.

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 one-parameter tool this is brief but serviceable; however, with no output schema and no annotations it omits the result/status format, asynchronous behavior, and prerequisites in the larger frame-generation pipeline. An agent cannot tell whether calling it returns a finished chain or submits a job.

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?

The schema only defines episode_id as a positive integer; the description adds the 'whole episode' scope, which maps directly to that parameter. It does not explain preconditions such as whether frames must already exist, but for a single self-explanatory parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 that the tool creates an episode-wide head/tail frame relay chain, with the explicit mechanism: each shot's first frame inherits the previous shot's last frame. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling frame-generation tools, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a direct imperative.

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?

Gives a clear use case: use this when inter-shot continuity is desired, and notes it is smoother than independent per-shot frame output, which is the obvious alternative. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or a named sibling tool, so it stops short of a full routing directive.

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