frontiermath_list_problems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or how it behaves regarding output size or pagination. The behavior is simple and mostly clear, but lacks explicit safety assurances.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, this description fully conveys what the tool does: it lists all problems and their descriptions. It is complete for the tool's simplicity, covering the essential return content without over-specifying.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is vacuously 100% and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and there is no ambiguity about inputs.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all available FrontierMath problems') and specifies that descriptions are included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like frontiermath_solve_problem, which focuses on solving rather than listing.

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 for enumerating available problems, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the topic-specific tools or solve_problem. No explicit when-to-use or exclusions are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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