motion studio capture chunk

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds non-obvious traits the schema cannot express: the 32768-byte pre-encoding bound, the 180-second / next-capture expiry, and the do-not-feed-to-model warning. It does not describe pagination/ordering across chunks, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (purpose, size bound, expiry/safety), with the primary purpose front-loaded. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be restated, and the description covers lifetime, size, and safe handling well for a read-only chunk tool. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, which the low schema coverage leaves undocumented.

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 only 33% (sessionId alone), and the description compensates for none of it — captureId, index, and the index maximum of 63 are never explained. The agent must infer that chunks are addressed by captureId + index from the schema alone.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a bounded PNG hex chunk') and scopes it to the local-file-writer use case. It is clearly distinct from motion_studio_capture_frame in outcome, but it never explicitly names that sibling, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 contextual direction ('for a local file writer') and a clear prohibition ('Do not send raw chunks to a language model'), which is genuine when-not guidance. However, it never names alternatives such as motion_studio_capture_frame or explains when to choose chunked retrieval over a single capture.

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