dom_list_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely delivers: 'List' clearly conveys a read-only diagnostic op, and the mention of 'JavaScript execution contexts' discloses that results cover more than DOM frames. Remaining gaps are edge behaviors — whether nested iframes are included, behavior with no attached tab, and whether results are live — but the core safety profile and return scope are accurately conveyed. No contradiction with annotations, since none exist.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states what it lists and where, the second gives the exact use case, cause, and follow-up action. The purpose is front-loaded before the guidance. No redundant phrasing, no restating of the tool name, 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it lists, where, when to call it, and what to do next (frame:'all' on dom_query). The return format is implied rather than stated explicitly, and edge cases (nested frames, no-tab error) go unaddressed — minor for a tool this simple, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 schema is empty (0 params), so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to document. The description's second sentence (iframe diagnosis leading to frame:'all') indirectly explains why the tool takes no arguments — it operates on the already-attached tab. It adds useful context without needing to clarify any argument semantics, since none exist.

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'), a concre's resource ('frames and JavaScript execution contexts'), and a scope ('in the attached tab'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like dom_query and debugger_evaluate_at_frame by framing itself as an inspection/discovery step rather than a query or evaluation. No tautology — the description adds real content beyond the name.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it when a selector finds nothing.' It names the consequence and the alternative — content 'needs frame:'all' on dom_query' — so the agent knows both when to pick this tool and what to do with its results. This is explicit when/alternative guidance, not an implied hint.

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