list_frames

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a read-only operation. The description adds that it returns stable frameId values and parent relationships, which is useful context. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, performance) are disclosed, but the annotation reduces the burden.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then usage guidance. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

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 low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description adequately covers the function and the parameter use. It could optionally mention the return format (list of frames), but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to understand.

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, so the description must compensate. It explains that bounding boxes should be requested only when needed, directly adding meaning to the 'includeBox' parameter beyond its name and default value.

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 lists frames/iframes with specific fields (frameId, parent relationships, URLs, names). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are primarily interaction tools like click, hover, etc.

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 provides conditional guidance on requesting bounding boxes via the includeBox parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, siblings are mostly action-oriented, so the context is implicitly clear.

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