get_frontier_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explains the frontier conditions, ordering (sort_order ASC, then created_at DESC), and that tasks are not soft-deleted. It stops short of mentioning auth or rate limits, but for a read tool this is adequate.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It uses bullet points for clarity and ends with an Args line. No wasted words.

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 (filtered list with four conditions) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, criteria, ordering, and parameter. The agent can fully understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is described as 'Max tasks to return (default 10).' The schema provides type and default, but the description adds context on its purpose. Schema coverage is 0% because no inline schema, but the description compensates.

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 returns tasks the agent can claim next, specifically the 'frontier', and defines the four criteria that constitute the frontier. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on ready-to-work tasks.

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 explicitly says 'Use this as your first call when the user says "do the next task"', providing clear guidance on when to use. It does not mention when not to use, but the positive instruction is strong.

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