screenstudio_export_frame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds one piece of behavioral context — the frame comes from a *completed* render — but says nothing about output format (image bytes, file path, or URL), whether the frame is persisted, or any failure mode when the export is not finished.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single sentence fragment with no verb and no front-loaded statement of action. Nothing is padded, yet the brevity costs more than it saves for a tool whose behavior is not self-evident.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'frame' return looks like, and it omits that entirely. For a read tool that presumably returns image data, the missing return-format information and the ambiguous meaning of jobId leave the definition inadequate despite the tool's low complexity.

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 the load. 'playback milliseconds' usefully supplies the unit for timeMs, which the schema only types as a plain number with minimum 0, but jobId's meaning (export job vs project id) is left entirely to the parameter name and uuid pattern. Partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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 fragment 'A frame of the completed render at playback milliseconds' identifies the resource (a frame) and its scope (the completed render, not the editor preview), which implicitly separates it from siblings like screenstudio_editor_frame and screenstudio_source_frames. However, it is a verbless noun phrase that never says what the tool does (extract/return/fetch) or what it produces, leaving the purpose only inferable.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites stated as instructions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (screenstudio_editor_frame for editor previews, screenstudio_source_frames, screenstudio_contact_sheet). The only faint hint is 'completed render,' which implies a finished export job is required, but this is never stated as a usage condition.

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