cg_frame_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sampling cadence and the concrete metrics captured (overflow, text px, rewarded vs no-ad button size), but says nothing about side effects such as launching a browser, writing PNGs to temp, or the shape of the returned report.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first, followed by a tight colon list of measured properties. Dense but every clause carries information; 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what is measured but not what is returned (report structure, failure details) nor how it relates to sibling tools. Adequate for orientation, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 78% and the per-parameter descriptions are detailed (init, path, query, sizes suffix 'm', step verbs). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate; engine and minTextPx remain undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb (measures) and resource (the DOM in each portal frame size), plus the exact sampling points (boot, each check step, end). It is clearly a responsive-layout audit tool, though it never contrasts itself with siblings cg_build_check or cg_sdk_session.

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?

It states when the tool samples internally, but never when an agent should choose it over cg_build_check or cg_sdk_session, and lists no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the measurement list.

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