list_frontiers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful content scope by naming what the frontiers include (open problems, dependencies, active research groups), but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, or whether the list is complete.

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 wasted words. It is slightly evocative with metaphors like 'edge of science' and 'pushing it now,' but remains concise and informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. With zero parameters and a clear statement of the content returned, the description is largely complete for this simple listing tool, though it omits any note about result size or pagination.

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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to document and the schema is trivially empty.

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 resource as the frontiers of the ReviewMetric Atlas and specifies the content: open problems, what they build on, and the research groups pursuing them. It does not explicitly state the listing operation or distinguish the tool from siblings like search_atlas, but the resource is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_atlas or atlas_whats_new. The description merely describes the content rather than giving usage context or exclusions.

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