extract_frames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format ('sequential image files') but lacks critical details: whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has performance/rate limits. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('extract frames', 'from a video', 'as sequential image files') earns its place by clarifying the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like file handling, error conditions, or output specifics (e.g., naming conventions, file sizes). For a tool that performs extraction with multiple options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like default behaviors or usage examples.

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 action ('extract frames') and resource ('from a video'), specifying the output format ('as sequential image files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'extract_audio' by focusing on visual frames rather than audio, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other video processing tools like 'convert_video' or 'trim_video' beyond the core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for frame extraction, it doesn't mention when to choose it over other video tools (e.g., 'get_video_info' for metadata, 'trim_video' for editing), nor does it specify prerequisites like file formats or system requirements.

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