Validate Frame

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail: it supports exactly three protocols, runs a checklist per protocol, and clarifies the direction parameter. It also notes a Modbus TCP nuance (no CRC, unlike RTU). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then organizes protocol-specific checks in a list-like format. It is efficient, though slightly dense with technical terms. No wasted words, but could be more scannable with bullet points.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple protocols and many validation items) and zero schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete for its core function. However, it omits details on frame_hex formatting and frame_format options, and does not describe the output structure (though an output schema exists). The protocol-specific check lists are thorough, but the parameter gaps lower completeness.

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 explain all parameters. It clarifies 'direction' (req or resp) and implicitly defines 'protocol' by listing supported protocols, but it does not explain 'frame_hex' format (e.g., with/without separators) nor 'frame_format' beyond the default '3e_binary'. This is a significant gap given zero schema help.

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 validates a frame against a specification checklist, producing pass/fail per item. It names the specific protocol checks (Modbus TCP, FINS/TCP, MELSEC 3E) and explicitly notes it requires no device connection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like parse_frame (which would decode) and probe_device (which requires a device).

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 implies usage context by stating 'no need to connect device' and by listing the protocols it handles, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus parse_frame or get_proxy_frames. It gives context (offline validation) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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