get_frame_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the setup/debugging framing but says nothing about what the response contains, whether it's cached, or what happens if no frame is configured. Adequate but thin beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, then context, then example queries. The 'Use this to answer' bullets are slightly repetitive with the preceding sentence but earn their place as retrieval cues. No wasted prose.

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 zero-param, read-only tool this is close to complete, but there is no output schema and the description never says what 'household/frame information' actually includes (frame ID, household name, device count?). The example 'What's my frame ID?' hints at one field, leaving the rest undefined.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by not mentioning any inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get Skylight household/frame information.' This is clearly distinct from every sibling tool (messages, calendar, chores, lists, devices), so an agent can route to it without opening the schema. It stops short of 5 only because 'household/frame' is a slightly ambiguous compound that isn't defined.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts ('setup verification and debugging') and maps example user utterances to the tool, which is strong routing guidance. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, but there are no real alternatives among the siblings for this data.

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