frame_parse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a strong trait: failures (missing header, length out of bounds, truncated frame) are reported individually with leftover bytes and never silently dropped. That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs. It does not mention the max_frames cap or how endianness/length_size affect parsing, so it is not fully complete.

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-loads the mechanism, follows with a tight when-to-use line, then three illustrative one-line calls, and closes with the critical no-silent-drop warning. Every element earns its place and the examples substitute effectively for prose parameter explanations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. The description covers purpose, use condition, the header/length_offset dependency, checksum options, and error behavior, which is strong for an 8-param tool. The remaining gap is the four undocumented tuning parameters (endian, max_frames, length_size, length_includes_header).

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partly does. It explains header, length_offset (offset relative to frame start), and the checksum enum values (none/sum8/crc16_modbus), but endian, max_frames, length_size, and length_includes_header are left undocumented anywhere.

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 (generic binary frame parsing) plus the mechanism (header + length field splitting, optional per-frame checksum). This implicitly distinguishes it from protocol-specific siblings like modbus_parse and nmea_parse, but never names them explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 a concrete use condition: custom MCU protocol hex streams that don't line up. It also states the parameter-filling advice (fill as little as possible) and the header/length_offset dependency. It stops short of explicitly routing to or away from the sibling parsers (modbus_parse, nmea_parse), so alternatives are implied rather than stated.

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