seed_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists metadata, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm this, nor does it mention pagination behavior, response structure, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond the basic action, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, succinct sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no redundant phrases or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured. It earns a perfect score for efficiency.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the core purpose, and the absence of an output schema means it does not need to explain return values. However, given the pagination parameters and optional filtering, the description could have added context about how these are used or what 'metadata' entails. It is minimally viable but lacks depth to be fully complete.

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 only 33% (only filtersJson has a description), which is below the 50% threshold. The tool description does not compensate by explaining pageSize or pageNumber, their purposes, or how filtersJson affects results. While pageSize and pageNumber are self-explanatory via names, the description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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 verb (List), resource (Seed frame metadata), and scope (from the configured organization). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from related sibling tools like seed_get_frame or seed_delete_frames by using 'List' and 'metadata', though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Overall, it is clear and specific, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios where a different tool (e.g., seed_get_frame) would be more appropriate, or any exclusions. The only implied usage is from the tool name and description, which is minimal.

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