next_steps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool returns a list sorted by weakest areaтное and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention edge cases, invalid inputs, error behavior, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary behavior and ordering, and the second section cleanly lists the arguments. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 only two parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics and output ordering. It lacks broader context such as when to invoke it after scoring or how it relates to explain_area, but the core invocation details are sufficient.

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?

Both parameters are semantically described beyond the schema: 'odpowiedzi' is explained as a map from question numbers 1-30 to allowed values ('tak / czesciowo / nie / nie_wiem'), and 'ile' gets a numerical range (1-15). This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 the verb ('Zwraca' - returns), the resource ('liste pierwszych krokow naprawczych'), and adds meaningful ordering information ('od najslabszego obszaru'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like score_scan and get_methodology by indicating it produces actionable repair steps, though it does not explicitly differentiate from explain_area.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as score_scan or explain_area. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow position, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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