ie_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 discloses that the tool lists frames and returns specific fields, but does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or error conditions. The behavior is implied to be non-destructive, but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences with no extraneous text. The main action is front-loaded, and the usage hint is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is returned and how to use it. It does not cover error conditions or edge cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because there are none. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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 the tool lists frames/iframes of the current page, specifying the output fields (index, name, id, src). It also distinguishes from siblings by explaining how to use the output with other tools via the 'frame' argument.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use the index or name with the "frame" arg of other tools.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and how to use its output. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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