list_frames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It confirms read-only enumeration and page scope, but it does not explain whether nested frames are included, what data is returned for each frame, or how the results relate to other frame-oriented tools.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'List' states the action, 'all frames/iframes' states the resource, and 'in the page' states the scope.

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 no-argument read-only listing tool, the description is minimally viable: an agent can invoke it without further clarification. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description would benefit from stating the returned frame identifiers or noting that results can be used with frame_evaluate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is handled appropriately; there is no missing semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all frames/iframes in the page'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like frame_evaluate, but the resource and scope are concrete enough to be 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention frame_evaluate or any other sibling that might be relevant for interacting with frames, nor does it state when listing frames is or is not appropriate.

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