frame_summary

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

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral constraint that the input must cover exactly one frame and that the tool decomposes that frame, but it doesn't describe output or limit behavior. With the output schema present and no contradiction, this is reasonable but not rich.

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 the tool's purpose and then the usage prerequisite. There is no filler and nothing that merely repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

The definition gives enough to attempt an invocation: purpose, an example callset, and how to obtain frame boundaries from trace_info/list_frames. However, trace is never described and limit's meaning/effect is left unexplained, which is a clear gap given 0% schema coverage. Because an output schema exists, not explaining the return shape is acceptable.

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 needed to carry parameter meaning. It explains the calls parameter through the '120000-125000' example and 'one frame' scope, but says nothing about trace or limit. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a concrete analysis action ('Break a frame down') and enumerates the summary categories (draw calls, render-target switches, shader binds), so an agent can tell this is a frame-scoped analysis tool rather than a raw call retriever. It doesn't name an alternative sibling, but the frame-level framing distinguishes it from tools like dump_calls, get_calls, and search_calls.

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?

It explicitly instructs the caller to pass a one-frame callset, gives a concrete format example, and names trace_info(per_frame=True) and list_frames as the way to find frame boundaries. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or alternative-selection guidance, so it stops short of full 5.

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