next_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the dependency on 'local story state' and the selection logic, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects (e.g., marking the story as in progress). This ambiguity is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence defines the output and selection criteria; the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned (next approved, not done), the dependency (local state), and the use case (picking up work). It lacks explicit edge-case behavior (e.g., behavior when no approved story exists) but this is a minor omission for a tool of this complexity.

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 the schema is empty. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters. According to the calibration, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information.

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's function: returning 'the next approved story that is not yet done, per local story state.' This specific selection criteria (approved and not done) distinguishes it from siblings like list_stories (all stories) and get_story (a specific story). The verb 'pick up work' implies retrieval of a single next item.

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 the tool: 'Use this to pick up work without guessing at priorities.' This provides a clear use case and implies this tool is preferable over manual priority guessing from list_stories. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude when not to use it.

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