list_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it lists text frames, but does not disclose return format, side effects (likely read-only but unstated), or behavior when scope='selection' (e.g., requires an active selection). It adds no insight beyond the parameter schema.

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 concise sentence, appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, but it is under-specified. It omits important context like the selection scope and return details, so it is brief but incomplete rather than efficiently complete.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., frame references for use with other tools) and any prerequisites. It fails to mention the 'selection' scope, relationship between parameters, or the tool's role in a workflow, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions and an enum for scope, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a restatement of 'page or document' but does not clarify the interaction between page and scope (e.g., page is ignored unless scope='page') or the meaning of the 'selection' option, which the schema covers, so it adds minimal extra value.

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 clear verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('all text frames') with a scoping qualifier ('on a page or in a document'). It distinguishes the listing operation from sibling tools like get_text or create_text_frame, though it omits the 'selection' scope that the schema supports, creating a minor gap.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings (get_text, insert_text, etc.), the description does not clarify that list_frames is for enumerating frames rather than reading content or manipulating them, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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