explore_frontier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the reachable vs. unreachable ordering, that unreachable plots are listed last, map_edge on polar rows, the OCEAN/Trireme restriction, and that the note field explains an empty list. It does not state read-only status explicitly, but the query nature is evident.

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?

Dense and largely front-loaded, opening with the core concept before enumerating returned fields. It is somewhat run-on with many clauses, but nearly every sentence supplies decision-relevant information rather than padding.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description thoroughly documents the return shape (unrevealed_neighbors, distance, reachable, terrain, map_edge, totals) and the empty-list behavior. The only real gap is the undocumented unit_id.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `limit` fully (default 12) but never describes the required `unit_id` parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented. It does describe the return fields richly, which is beyond input-param scope.

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 precisely defines the resource: revealed, passable plots of a unit's domain that border unrevealed plots, nearest first. This distinguishes it from siblings like revealed_map or map_index, though the opening is phrased poetically ('Where the known map ends') rather than as a direct verb+resource statement.

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 ties usage to a workflow: 'move_unit refuses unrevealed targets, so an explorer picks its next stop from here,' naming the sibling and the condition that selects this tool. No explicit when-not guidance, but the context is clear.

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