athena_pareto_frontier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the computation is 'exact' and mentions optional robust/direction modes, but it does not state side effects, return format, or error behavior. This is limited but not misleading.

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?

A single, concise sentence that conveys the core function and two optional parameters. No filler or redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the main verb.

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 the tool's complexity (nested arrays, multiple optional parameters, no output schema or annotations), the description leaves critical details unresolved: how candidates are structured, what epsilon means, how directions is specified, and what the frontier output looks like.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It hints at candidates, robust, and directions via 'interval-robust dominance' and 'min/max metric directions', but it does not explain the epsilon parameter or the expected structure of candidates/directions.

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 computes the exact non-dominated frontier for a candidate set, with optional interval-robust dominance and direction handling. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other athena_* optimization or geometry tools. The description implies use for Pareto frontier computation but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references.

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