list_frameworks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation (list) and mentions statistics, but does not clarify what statistics include, whether auth is required, or if results are paginated. It is adequate for a simple read-only list but lacks specifics.

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 with no fluff. It directly conveys the purpose and key output characteristic (statistics) without unnecessary details.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it fails to explain what 'statistics' means, missing an opportunity to clarify return structure. It is sufficient for a basic list but leaves ambiguity.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value over the schema by specifying that the tool returns not just a list of names but also 'statistics,' which implies additional data beyond basic identification.

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 tool lists all available CSS frameworks and their statistics, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_css and get_class by focusing on listing available frameworks rather than generating or retrieving specific items.

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 such as search_classes or get_component. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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