get_frontiers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the tool as retrieving 'proposed gaps', implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe (no side effects) or mention any authentication requirements. The context of zero parameters and an output schema suggests a simple query, but the description could be more transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's function. It could briefly explain what 'proposed gaps' means or how the AI generates them, but it is largely sufficient.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, 0 parameters defaults to a score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'proposed gaps in the AI Dictionary', and elaborates that these are 'AI-recommended areas where the dictionary is missing terms'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_proposals and propose_term, which deal with existing proposals.

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 when one wants to see missing terms in the dictionary, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives. For a simple tool with no parameters, this is adequate but not proactive.

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