get_section_frames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that nested sections are returned as children and that the result is a tree, which goes beyond the input schema. It does not discuss error cases or auth, but for a read-oriented tree-fetching tool this is solid coverage.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the practical rationale in a short second clause. Every sentence contributes meaningful context without unnecessary 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 relatively simple read tool, the description sufficiently explains the purpose, the output shape, and a motivating use case. The input schema covers the parameters, and no output schema exists, but the description's mention of the hierarchical tree provides the needed expectations for the return value.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context around sectionNodeId by tying it to the hierarchical tree behavior, but it does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states it retrieves a hierarchical tree of sections and frames within a section node, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from the sibling tools, which focus on other concerns like prototype connections, flow maps, and metadata.

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 gives a concrete use case—understanding section structure for scoping work like splitting PRs—which gives an agent clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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