extract_frames_from_video

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 describes the extraction action but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential performance impacts (e.g., large video processing), error handling, or output behavior (e.g., file creation confirmation). The description covers basic functionality but misses important behavioral traits.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point-like list of parameters with explanations. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Minor improvement could be made by front-loading key constraints, but overall it's efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It thoroughly documents parameters but lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, errors) and output details. Without annotations or output schema, users might not understand the full operation scope, though parameter coverage is excellent.

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 significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all five parameters in Chinese, including 'video_path' (video path), 'fps' (frames per second with examples), 'output_folder' (output directory), 'format' (image format with mappings: 0=PNG, 1=JPG, 2=WEBP), and 'total_frames' (maximum frames, 0=unlimited). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: '提取视频中的图像' (extract frames from video). It specifies the verb (extract) and resource (frames from video), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clip_video' or 'get_video_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., video file accessibility), compare to siblings like 'clip_video' for different operations, or specify scenarios where extraction is appropriate. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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