unmanned_frontier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a ranked list of unwritten pages sorted by demand, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it never modifies data, leaving some ambiguity. For a no-parameter listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences long, with the first sentence succinctly defining the tool's purpose and the second sentence providing a usage directive. Every word contributes value, and the core function is front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the what, the ordering, and the when-to-use. It lacks an explicit description of the return format (e.g., a list of page titles), but that is largely inferable from the 'ranked work queue' phrasing. The guidance about checking before writing adds operational context that makes the tool's role in a workflow clear.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist. The schema coverage is 100%, and there is nothing to clarify beyond what the empty schema implies.

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 identifies the tool as 'the wiki's ranked work queue' and specifies it contains 'pages something has named but nobody has written', with ordering 'most-wanted first'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unmanned_create_page (which creates new pages) or unmanned_read_page (which reads existing pages).

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool: 'CHECK THIS BEFORE WRITING' and explains the rationale that 'filling a wanted stub beats inventing a new page'. It implies the alternative of creating a new page, though it does not name a specific sibling tool explicitly. The guidance is clear and directive but lacks a formal 'when not to use' clause.

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