get_frame_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It is clearly framed as a read-only summary operation and discloses what information will be returned. It does not address edge cases like calling before a capture is opened, but no contradictory destructive or mutating behavior is implied.

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 concise, begins with a one-sentence summary, and uses a compact bullet list to convey the return categories. Every part adds useful information with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it summarizes the categories of returned data and requires no input configuration. The only notable gap is not mentioning the prerequisite of an open/current capture, which appears to be implied by sibling tools like open_capture.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter detail the description needs to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return content instead.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current capture frame') and clearly enumerates the contents of the summary. The bullet list distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual draw calls or buffer contents, so an agent can tell this is the frame-level statistics tool.

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 as the go-to for high-level frame statistics, listing draw calls, dispatches, markers, and resource counts. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_capture_status or get_draw_calls, nor does it mention that a capture/frame must already be open.

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