list_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the main action (navigate and return frame info) but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The word 'diagnostic' hints at safety but is insufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Diagnostic', no filler. Every word adds value. Highly efficient.

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 simple diagnostic tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, return fields, and usage hints. It lacks detail on error cases or empty frame trees, but is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the URL must be http/https and allowlisted, and lists the return fields. This extra context improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: navigate to a URL and return its frame tree with specific fields. It is distinct from sibling tools (check_auth, extract_semantic_dom, extract_semantic_dom_after) which focus on authentication or extraction, not frame diagnostics.

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 includes context for when to use it ('before extraction') and labels it as a diagnostic tool. It implies alternatives by mentioning extraction in the context, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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