screenstudio_editor_frame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context that matters: the 6-frame cap, the requirement that the editor window is on screen, and the fact that no export/file is produced. It does not say how frames are returned, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and purpose front-loaded and the precondition as a short trailing constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only preview-capture tool with no output schema and two params, the description covers intent, limits, and the key environmental precondition. The remaining gap is the return shape (images inline vs paths), which the description leaves unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains playbackMs indirectly ('playback times (up to 6)') but gives no format or unit detail (the schema's ms unit is only inferable from the param name), and projectPath is not addressed at all. Partial compensation only.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Capture the editor's rendered preview at playback times') and adds the intent behind it (check framing, zoom targets, legibility). The phrase 'without exporting' distinguishes it from the sibling export_frame tool.

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 clear context for when to use it ('to check framing, zoom targets and legibility') and a hard prerequisite ('The editor window must be on screen'). It implies a route away from export_frame via 'without exporting', but never names the alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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