browser_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no mention that subsequent commands target the switched frame, no failure behavior for invalid selectors, no persistence or session effects. This is a significant gap for an operation that mutates navigation context.

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 words is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no front-loading of any useful constraint, no additional context, and nothing an agent can act on beyond the name itself.

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 tool that changes navigation context with 2 optional params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine when to call it, what it returns, or what side effects to expect — it cannot be used correctly from this definition alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both params. However, the description adds zero meaning beyond the schema — it never hints which parameter combination applies in which situation or what 'omit for main' means in practice. The baseline of 3 is not met because the description offers no semantic support at all.

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 verb and resource ('Switch frame') but adds almost nothing beyond the tool name itself. It does not explain what a frame is here (likely iframes), when frame-switching matters, or how it differs from siblings like browser_navigate or browser_tab. It is a borderline tautology.

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 on when to use this tool versus the 37 siblings, when a frame is in play, or when to switch back to the main frame. The schema's 'omit for main' hint is the only usage signal and it lives in the schema, not the description.

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