Parse gRPC 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. It states the core action ('Split') but does not disclose what the output format is (e.g., a list of frames, decoded messages), how errors are handled, whether splitting is lossless, or what the 'strict' flag does. For a parser tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. Conciseness is good, but the brevity comes at the expense of necessary details, making it merely adequate rather than excellent.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and moderate complexity (gRPC framing includes length prefixes and trailers), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, the length-prefix format, endianness, or how trailing frames are represented. The tool may be simple, but the description should at least cover the basic output contract.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for the parameters (data, strict, encoding). The schema provides only types and an enum, leaving the agent to infer from names. The description does not clarify what 'strict' means or how 'encoding' affects input interpretation, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 ('Split') and clearly identifies the resource ('gRPC or gRPC-Web length-prefixed messages and trailer frames'). It distinguishes clearly from siblings like grpc_frame_build (which builds frames) and http2_frame_parse (which handles HTTP/2 frames, not gRPC framing). Scope is explicit.

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 when you have gRPC or gRPC-Web wire-format data to split, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no reference to related tools (e.g., grpc_frame_build for the reverse operation). Guidance is only implied by the name and phrasing.

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