list_text_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. It usefully discloses that the operation lists frames and includes indices, previews, and selection status. However, it does not mention preview truncation, invalid page indices, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the verb 'list'.

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 that states the action, scope, and output essentials without filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the key returned elements (indices, content preview, selection status). For a simple list operation with one optional parameter, this is nearly complete; only minor details like output format or preview limits are missing.

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 100%: pageIndex is described as 'Page index to inspect' with a default of 0. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('text frames'), and the scope ('on a page'), plus concrete output details (indices, content preview, selection status). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_text_content or get_selected_objects by focusing on the full set of frames with 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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_text_content or get_selected_objects. It states what the tool does, but not when it is preferred, when it should be avoided, or what prerequisites exist.

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