review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the tool consumes the already-delivered film file and emits image artifacts plus a contact sheet. It omits whether files are written to disk and where, what happens if out/film.mp4 does not exist yet, and any cost or runtime characteristics.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. It leads with the output artifacts rather than the action verb, which is slightly less front-loaded but still 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the caller gets back at a conceptual level. It leaves out the dependency on a prior render and the destination of the generated frames, which an agent would need to sequence the call correctly.

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 compensate. The parenthetical '(2-24)' supplies a valid range for n that the schema lacks and implies n is a frame count; however, the required 'project' parameter is never explained in the description or the schema.

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 names the concrete artifacts produced (evenly spaced frames from out/film.mp4 plus a contact sheet) and the intent (judge the film as a phone viewer would), which is far more specific than the bare name 'review'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like preview, render, or check, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'From the delivered out/film.mp4' implies this runs after a render has been completed, giving an implicit precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as preview or check, which share overlapping territory.

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