Frontier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the ranking is recomputed and never stored, that artifacts are merged via duplicate_of, that nothing is filtered out, that calling again advances the queue, and the exact meaning of states like dismissed, materialized, and rejected.

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 well-organized and front-loads purpose before diving into ranking, states, and params. However, the no-save/stage-3 warning is repeated across two separate paragraphs and includes a date-stamped tool-deletion detail that is somewhat redundant, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not spell out return shapes; it covers all calling-relevant context: ranking inputs, merge semantics, state meanings, pagination via remaining, the absence of a save step, and parameter constraints. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema only provides names, types, and defaults, so the description adds essential meaning. It explains limit through the remaining/cut mechanics, dismiss as an explicit-only list of candidate_ids, and include_dismissed as a hide-and-report option. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource ('FRONTIER queue') and defines exactly what it returns: recent papers/repos pulled by the user's standing queries, ranked by attention-worthiness. It also states read-only/free and provides concrete user-intent triggers. It clearly differentiates itself from save/admission mechanisms even though it does not name sibling 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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user asks what is new, what the frontier found, or what they have not looked at yet. It also gives strong when-not guidance: pass dismiss only on explicit request, do not invent a save step, do not claim admission, and report rejected items as fetch failures rather than quality judgments.

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