read_frames

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the concrete behavioral constraint that 'limit is capped at 500' and notes the sample is 'bounded', which is useful. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundant details and is appropriately concise for a simple read tool.

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 5 parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It explains the return type ('raw-frame sample'), key filters, and the limit cap. It doesn't elaborate on return formatting (covered by output schema) or prerequisites, but that is acceptable for a read-only tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps log_path via 'local log', limit via 'bounded' and 'capped at 500', and id_filter/time_start/time_end via 'optional ID and timestamp filters'. This covers all parameters, though it doesn't specify filter inclusivity or time formats explicitly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource: a bounded raw-frame sample from a local log, with optional ID and timestamp filters. It also mentions 'bounded' and 'limit capped at 500', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_frame or get_message.

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 for raw-frame sampling tasks but does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusion criteria, or when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_signals or decode_frame. The 'raw-frame' wording gives context, but no direct guidance on tool selection is provided.

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