athena_extraction_frontier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses filtering (only planned) and ordering, but does not mention pagination, return format, error behavior, or whether run_id must exist. It adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is partially adequate. It covers purpose and ordering but omits parameter clarification and behavioral details like result size or error conditions. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more context would help, though the low complexity keeps this at a passable level.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain run_id beyond the schema's name. It references 'for an extraction run' but provides no detail on what a run_id is, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond minLength. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Return' with a resource ('currently PLANNED tasks for an extraction run') and adds ordering criteria ('depth/ordinal/id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle completed tasks or results.

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 a clear usage context: use this tool when you need only planned tasks for an extraction run. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'only currently PLANNED tasks' phrasing sets an exclusion. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, hence not a 5.

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