get_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, potential side effects, or whether it requires any context. It's minimal but not misleading, hence a mid-range score.

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 a single, concise phrase: 'Get the current frame and time.' It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, with no unnecessary words or repetition, and it is front-loaded with the action.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does, and the expected return is intuitive for a frame/time getter. However, it could have explicitly stated the return format or clarified that it does not modify state, but for this simple tool the gap is minor.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already fully covers this (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 the tool's function: 'Get the current frame and time.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('current frame and time'), and it is unambiguous. Although there are sibling tools like set_frame, the get/set distinction makes it clear, so it distinguishes from alternatives.

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 usage for retrieving the current frame and time, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since it's a simple getter with no obvious alternatives, the implied usage is acceptable but not explicitly guided.

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