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 and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: it explains partial matching for page names, automatic chunking for large pages (>50 frames), the return format ('compact list with frame names, sizes, and IDs'), and session persistence ('Session remembers what was sent'). It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but provides substantial operational details.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('HOW IT WORKS', 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW') and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the workflow section is somewhat lengthy; it could be slightly more concise while retaining clarity.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter context. It explains the return format and session behavior, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it doesn't detail error handling or authentication needs, leaving minor gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some context: it mentions partial match support for 'page_name' (implied in schema but reinforced) and explains the purpose of 'continue' in relation to chunking. However, it doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('List frames/screens'), target resource ('in a specific page'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pages' (which lists pages) and 'get_frame_info' (which provides detailed info on a single frame). The opening sentence is precise and 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?

The 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW' section explicitly provides step-by-step guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: first use 'list_pages' to find a page name, then 'list_frames' to see frames, followed by 'get_frame_info' for details or 'extract_assets' for assets. This clearly defines the tool's role in the workflow.

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