etabs_frames

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the returned data includes section and end nodes, but does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), filtering by story, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core resource, though the brevity omits necessary operational details, which is more a completeness issue than conciseness.

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?

With three parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination, filtering, or the meaning of the parameters. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without additional information.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention limit, story, or offset. The schema provides defaults but no semantic meaning, and the description does not compensate, leaving agents to guess the meaning of parameters.

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 identifies the resource (frame elements) and specifies they include assigned sections and end nodes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools for areas, points, and forces. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' but the intent is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like etabs_frame_forces or etabs_add_frame. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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