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

The '[read-only]' tag restates the readOnlyHint annotation, which is redundant. It does add useful context beyond annotations: the categories of frames returned, the built-in flayr frames in brand colors, the `ref` field, and the wrapped GET endpoint. No pagination or result-size behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the apply_frame handoff and API provenance as brief, useful addenda. No wasted text.

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?

As a read-only list with no output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and it does mention `ref`. However, with 0% schema coverage on three optional filter params, it leaves the filtering behavior under-specified for an agent to use kind/aspect 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 carry parameter meaning. The enumerated frame categories roughly map to the `kind` enum values and hint at a type filter, but the description never states that kind/aspect are filters, and `aspect` and `includeArchived` are entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (frames), enumerates the kinds of frames returned, and clarifies it includes both brand and built-in flayr frames. It also points to the downstream sibling apply_frame, distinguishing it from get_frame's single-frame fetch.

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 implies the workflow by noting each frame has a `ref` to pass to apply_frame, but it never explicitly states when to use list_frames versus get_frame or how the kind/aspect filters select results. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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