list_frames

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral meaning: the output values are call numbers that can be reused as scoping inputs elsewhere. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or behavior for invalid trace names, but for a simple read-only list tool this is acceptable.

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 13-word sentence with no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail. Every word contributes meaning: it states what is returned, in what form, and why it matters.

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 list tool with a rich output schema, read-only annotations, and defaults on optional parameters, the description is nearly adequate. The missing piece is explaining how count and start affect results; otherwise an agent can invoke it with just trace and understand the output concept.

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 had to compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention trace, count, or start at all. The agent must infer that count and start control pagination from their names and defaults alone, which is not enough given the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 states that the tool returns frame boundaries in terms of call numbers and that this is intended for scoping other queries. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence with an explicit verb, but the resource and output format are unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name siblings or contrast with frame_summary, so it misses the top score.

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 phrase 'so you can scope other queries to one frame' gives a clear intended use case and tells an agent why this tool exists. It does not list alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among the listed siblings.

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