group_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral constraint: the frame group must come from the last scan. It does not describe the exact return structure, path format, or behavior for an invalid group_id, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or repeated information from the schema. It places the key scoping detail ('from the last scan') at the end, but the sentence is short enough that this is not a significant issue.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description gives the core return concept (file paths) and an important scope limitation (last scan). However, with no output schema, it does not specify whether the result is a list, how paths are formatted, or what happens when group_id does not match the last scan. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 the description carries the burden of explaining group_id. It only says 'a frame group,' which weakly maps group_id to a frame group identifier. It does not explain how to obtain group_id, what values are valid, or how it relates to the last scan.

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 identifies the resource and scope: the file paths belonging to a frame group from the last scan. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' the noun-phrase form still communicates a retrieval action. It is specific enough to distinguish from scan_frames and other frame-processing siblings.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The phrase 'from the last scan' implies a temporal constraint, but the agent is left to infer that this tool is for retrieving paths after a scan. There are no named sibling alternatives or conditions.

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