goal_frontier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (GoalNode[] with depsIn/depsOut as [{nodeId, kind}]) and a meaningful behavioral nuance that nodes with externalRef.blocker are waiting on external events. It doesn't cover pagination or limits, but for a read tool the disclosure is substantial.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition before qualifiers, and every clause (role/run_id scoping, return shape, blocker caveat) earns its place. The single long sentence is dense but not padded.

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 correctly compensates by naming the return type and its fields. The blocker caveat adds operational detail an agent needs. Only minor gaps (pagination/limits) remain for this zero-annotation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces owner_role ('optionally for a role') and objective_run_id ('scoped to one objective_run_id') but ignores project_id entirely, adding nothing beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 defines a specific, non-obvious concept ('the ready-frontier') and states the exact semantics: nodes whose blocking dependencies are all done. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like goal_list and goal_advance by answering 'what can I start NOW'.

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 phrasing 'what can I start NOW' makes the use case clear, and the externalRef.blocker note tells the agent when a frontier node should NOT be treated as runnable. It does not, however, explicitly contrast this tool with goal_list or other goal siblings, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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