Lookup Frame Syntax

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what output it returns, any limitations (e.g., only statically defined syntax), or any dependencies. The term 'look up' implies read-only, but no explicit disclosure is given.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 presence of an output schema and simple optional parameters, the description is adequate for a basic lookup tool. However, it lacks usage context such as when to prefer this over search_documentation or how results are structured. The existence of an output schema may cover return details, but the description does not clarify the tool's role among siblings.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptions. The description adds a general mention of 'parameter formats' but does not elaborate on how the `who` or `frame_type` parameters interact. It adds minimal value over the schema.

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 action ('look up') and the specific resource: OpenWebNet message grammar, regex templates, and parameter formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_who_spec (WHO-specific codes) and search_documentation (general documentation search).

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 alternatives like search_documentation or get_who_spec. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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