get_target_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 does disclose the useful permission scoping ('frameIds the agent is allowed to modify'), which tells the agent these are the currently writable targets, but says nothing about the return format, empty-state behavior, or whether it errors when no targets are set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (current, target frameIds, allowed to modify) adds distinct meaning.

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-parameter, no-output-schema getter this is nearly complete: it names the returned entity and its scope. The only gap is the return shape (array of ids? count?), which the description implies but does not confirm.

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 no parameter semantics to convey; the schema is empty and nothing is missing. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless getter.

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 (Returns) and resource (the current target frameIds), plus a scope qualifier (frames the agent is allowed to modify). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like set_target_frame and clear_target_frames, though it does not name them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the companion tools (set_target_frame, clear_target_frames) that an agent would naturally pair this with. The read-before-modify workflow is only implied by 'allowed to modify'.

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