Validate Frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so reasonably well: it discloses offline operation, item-by-item pass/fail behavior, and protocol-specific validation logic including the nuance that Modbus TCP has no CRC (unlike RTU). It does not cover error handling or invalid-input behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by clean per-protocol bullet lists, and ends with a direction note. Every sentence adds protocol-specific value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema handles return values, so that is not a gap. However, for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, accepted protocol strings, frame_hex formatting, and frame_format values should be specified; they are mostly implied. The rich protocol checklists make it usable, but the missing parameter details keep it from being fully complete.

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. It only explains direction explicitly ('direction 取 req 或 resp') and hints at protocol values via the protocol sections. frame_hex format and frame_format semantics are not described, leaving an agent without enough information about how to supply those parameters.

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 action: run a spec validation checklist on one frame with itemized pass/fail results, and explicitly notes it requires no device connection. The protocol-specific checklists (Modbus TCP, FINS/TCP, MELSEC 3E) make the validation purpose concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling parse_frame tool, so it stops short of a 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 description gives clear usage context: use it offline to validate a frame against protocol rules, and it enumerates the supported protocols with their specific check items. It also explains the direction parameter accepts req or resp. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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