frame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens with an out-of-range frame number, whether numbering is 0-based, or whether a redraw occurs. For a state-changing tool it is essentially silent.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the dual set/query mode is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema present), so little is required. Still, frame indexing conventions and behavior on invalid input are left entirely unexplained for a tool that mutates viewer state.

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% and the parameter already documents 'Frame to jump to. Omit to query the current frame.' The description merely restates the same set/query duality, adding no format, range, or numbering semantics.

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 has a verb and a resource (sets/queries the frame), but 'frame' is ambiguous in a molecular viewer — movie frame vs. structural frame — and nothing distinguishes it from the closely related siblings mplay, mstop, forward, and backward. An agent can guess the intent but cannot confirm scope from the text alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus forward/backward or the mplay/mset family, nor on prerequisites like an existing movie. The only usage hint (omit the argument to query) is stated more precisely in the schema than in the description.

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