enter_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing about behavior: that this mutates the active frame context for later commands, what happens if the selector matches nothing, or how the 'timeout' parameter affects failure. Only the bare action is stated.

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?

Two words is brevity born of under-specification rather than economy; there is nothing front-loaded or structured because there is essentially no content. It fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test by having no sentence at all.

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?

A two-parameter, state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter documentation leaves the agent with nothing actionable beyond the name. The definition is not complete enough to invoke this tool reliably.

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 0%, so everything about the two parameters must come from the description, and it says nothing. It is unclear whether 'selector' is a CSS selector, frame name, index, or URL, and 'timeout' is entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Enter iframe'), which maps to the sibling pair exit_frame/exit_all_frames well enough to distinguish it from other tools. However, it never clarifies how the frame is identified or whether this affects the browsing context for subsequent commands, so the purpose is only minimally articulated.

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 indication of when to enter a frame versus using list_frames, exit_frame, or exit_all_frames, nor any prerequisite about being on a page first. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name alone.

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