List the open fronts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing sort order and the exact returned fields (identity, kind, state, title, lineage). It omits volume/pagination behavior, so an agent cannot know how large the result set may be.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: ordering and return shape first, sibling routing second, with no filler. The density of domain terms ('leaf fronts', 'tree impact') makes it slightly demanding to parse but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of listing return fields and does so; annotations cover safety. Remaining gaps are limits on result size and a definition of what counts as a 'front', which are modest for a zero-parameter read 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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, matching the empty schema.

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?

States a specific resource ('unfinished leaf fronts') and its ordering (blockers first, then tree impact and recency), which distinguishes it from list-like siblings such as vivac_find and vivac_brief that are explicitly redirected. The verb is only implicit in the description (the title supplies 'List'), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly routes three sibling tools by purpose: 'why for detail, brief for session orientation and find for text lookup', giving clear context for what this tool is not for. It does not state negative conditions or prerequisites for using vivac_open itself, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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