vibemap_get_next_ready_criterion

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

Annotations already confirm read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns the highest-priority ready criterion or null, and implies priority ordering. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The key information (purpose, behavior, return value) is front-loaded and concise. Every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and clear output (criterion or null), the description is complete. It doesn't need an output schema or extra detail.

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 100% with 'Project UUID' description. The description confirms that projectId is the project identifier but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it retrieves the highest-priority ready acceptance criterion for a project, with a clear verb (Get), resource (acceptance criterion), and scope (for a given project, only ready status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vibemap_list_acceptance_criteria' (lists all) and 'vibemap_claim_criterion' (claims a specific one).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to find the next criterion to work on. It implies that if no criterion is ready, it returns null, which is a clear usage cue. It could improve by noting sibling tools but already provides good context.

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