athena_frontier_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that missing event coverage or contract drift fails closed and never manufactures readiness, which is useful transparent behavior. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions, leaving 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition; every clause adds meaning.

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 has five undocumented parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers the selection criterion and fail-closed behavior. It does not explain domain terms like 'SCHED V3' or 'replayably READY', nor does it clarify what 'Pareto frontier' means here, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the five parameters (task, fetch, remote, profile, source_ref). Parameter names are not self-explanatory in context, and there are no enums or descriptions to help the agent.

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 a Pareto frontier, restricted to replayably READY SCHED V3 nodes. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and specifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from broader frontier tools.

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 this tool should be used when you need a Pareto frontier over ready nodes only, not all nodes, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. The 'only' qualifier gives some guidance, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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