research_get_frontier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, pagination, ordering, or what constitutes 'unresolved' or 'provisional.' This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool does, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves ambiguity about the meaning of 'frontier' and lacks usage guidance or caveats, so it is not fully complete for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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 only references 'project' implicitly via 'at the project frontier.' It does not clarify whether 'project' is an ID, name, or path, nor does it define accepted formats. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb 'Return' and identifies a clear resource: 'unresolved candidate and provisional work at the project frontier.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like research_get_context and research_get_record, 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?

The phrase 'at the project frontier' implies when to use this tool (retrieving pending work), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative might be better for other scenarios. Thus, usage is implied but not explicitly directed.

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