Get Proxy Frames

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as retrieval, but does not state whether an active proxy is required, whether frames are returned from a buffer, whether the call has side effects, or what happens when no frames exist. The direction definitions add domain context but not behavioral detail.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then clarifies direction terminology in parentheses. Every word carries meaning; there is no redundant filler, and it remains scannable.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for effective invocation. It fails to explain the port parameter's role, the behavior of limit, or the relationship to the proxy lifecycle. In the absence of annotations, key context is missing, leaving an agent to guess how to correctly use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining port and limit. It does not: port is entirely undefined, and limit is not explained beyond its schema default. The only parameter-related addition is the meaning of direction labels, but those are output semantics, not input parameter semantics.

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 clear verb ('取' / get) and a specific resource ('代理录制的双向透传帧' / proxy-recorded bidirectional transparent frames). It additionally defines the meaning of the direction values (c2s and s2c), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from the sibling get_listener_frames by explicitly anchoring it to proxy recording.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an active proxy, nor an explicit contrast with get_listener_frames or start_proxy. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and resource description.

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