text_getTextFrames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one useful signal — a timeout for large documents implies potentially slow execution — but says nothing about permissions, whether empty frames are included, or what the returned frames contain.

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 zero filler. The verb, resource, scope, and the one notable modifier are all in the first few words.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, an agent must infer the return shape (frame references? IDs? contents?) and the read-only nature from the word 'List' alone. For a 4-parameter tool in a large sibling set, the definition does too little.

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 75%, which already documents timeout, document_id, and includeControlChars, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the page scope and the timeout option but adds no meaning for pageIndex (undocumented in the schema) or for document_id and includeControlChars.

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 with scope: 'List all text frames on a page'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like text_getContent or text_getStories, which concern content and stories rather than frame objects. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus text_getStories, text_getContent, or text_getFormatting, all of which operate on the same text domain. The 'optional timeout' phrasing hints only at performance tuning, not at when this tool is the right choice.

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