analysis_get_frame

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

The description says 'Get' and 'Returns', implying a read-only operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true further suggests a side-effect-free read. This is a direct contradiction between the description and annotations, making the behavior unclear and potentially misleading.

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 core purpose, and no redundant wording. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Even with an output schema, the description is insufficient given 8 parameters and the need for an analysis session. It fails to explain the bytes mode options, reference/prev frame semantics, or the meaning of include flags, and lacks guidance on when to use this over sibling tools.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. It only hints at include_bytes and frame_number, but bytes_mode, ref_frame, include_columns, and other parameters are left unexplained, leaving the agent guessing about valid values and effects.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'complete protocol dissection tree for a single frame', and adds return details (protocol layers, field values, optionally raw bytes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analysis_list_frames, which likely provide a broader list.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed frame data, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as analysis_list_frames for a more general view. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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