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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return content (step number, name, why it is needed). However, it does not explain what the recommendation is based on, what happens when no steps remain, or error behavior when project_id is invalid.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then trigger conditions, then return values. The clauses run together without punctuation, making it read as one telegraphed stream, but there is no wasted 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, and expected return fields. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though the basis of the recommendation and the empty/terminal case are unaddressed.

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?

There is only one parameter (project_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it. The description adds no further semantics about the id. Per the rules, this is the baseline 3.

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 states a specific action (recommend the next step of a design workflow) and clarifies the output — step number, name, and rationale. It is clear what it does, but does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as design_step_context or design_gate_rules, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives concrete trigger scenarios — the user asks '接下来做什么'/'下一步填什么', or has just saved a step and wants to know what remains. That is strong when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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