Parse And Validate Frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool parses and performs semantic validation, which implies read-only analysis. But it does not describe failure modes (e.g., behavior on malformed frame strings), whether validation errors are returned in the response, or the exact scope of semantic validation. This is adequate but leaves a meaningful behavioral gap for an unhandled edge case.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It states the exact resource and operation in the first clause. Every word carries meaning; there is no wasted ink.

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 a very simple one-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. What is missing is a note about expected behavior on invalid input or the exact semantic validation process, but the output schema covers return structure, so this is only a minor gap. It ranks slightly above baseline because the scope is simple and mostly covered by structured data.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'frame' has rich examples in the schema. The description adds an OpenWebNet frame string and the notion of validation, but does not add new parameter-level clarity beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the job and the description does not extend it.

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 states a specific verb ('parse') and a concrete resource ('raw OpenWebNet frame string'), and adds 'semantic protocol validation'. This clearly distinguishes the negative: it is not a lookup or draft tool. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings, so it stops short of a 5, but the action is unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied: use it when you have a raw frame and need it parsed/validated. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no alternative naming (e.g., 'for syntax lookup use lookup_frame_syntax'), and no mention of prerequisite knowledge or context. It earns the implied-usage baseline but no more.

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