next_snipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially meets it by enumerating the returned payload (problem, evidence, suspect symbol with confidence, related symbols, context cost, risk, verification tests) and the prioritization policy. It never states whether the call is read-only or whether supplying an agent id claims/locks the item, nor whether repeated calls without an agent return the same item — a meaningful gap for a tool whose parameter exists to prevent collisions.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the selection rule and followed by return contents and the one parameter's usage. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

One optional parameter and an existing output schema mean return-value documentation is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the description still summarizes the payload. The remaining hole is the side-effect profile — whether calling this reserves or locks a snipe — which an agent coordinating with claim_snipe and verify_snipe would want before calling.

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% for the single 'agent' parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the value type (a stable id) and the reason it exists (so several agents never pick the same item). It does not say whether the id is arbitrary or must match a registered agent, which is the only missing detail.

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?

Names a specific selection operation ('the highest-value isolated issue to fix next') and states the tie-breaking rule (own in-progress snipe first), which separates it from siblings like snipe_list and snipe_board. The domain term 'snipe' is never defined, but the surrounding clause makes the resource clear enough to invoke correctly.

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?

Gives one explicit usage rule ('pass agent="<stable id>" so several agents never pick the same item'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance for concurrent callers. It never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative tool for browsing versus picking, so an agent comparing next_snipe to snipe_list or claim_snipe must infer the distinction.

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