graphic_sheet

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses exactly which frames are sampled (intro first plus two more, hold/loop middle, outro middle and last) and that tiles are flattened over grey so transparency reads. This is concrete behavioral detail that helps the agent know what the image will contain, with no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and supporting sampling/compositing details following. The middle sentence is dense, but every clause carries concrete information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 still communicates that the result is an image, what frames are included, and the background treatment. It assumes some domain familiarity with 'phase boundary' and 'loop,' but for a specialized inspection tool that is reasonable and not a serious gap.

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 'name' parameter is already described as 'the captured graphic to look at.' The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it remains at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 identifies the resource (an animated graphic) and the output form (an image with one labelled tile per phase boundary). It does not use a strong imperative like 'render' or 'generate', and it does not explicitly contrast with sibling sheet tools, but the phase-boundary detail is distinctive enough to separate it from similar tools.

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 first sentence frames the intended use: visually inspecting an animated graphic's phases as a labelled sheet. The closing caveat, 'What you see is an opinion, not a check,' explicitly warns against treating it as verification, though it does not name an alternative checking tool.

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