next_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait — the operation is atomic, which matters for concurrent agents — but it omits what happens when no task is ready, whether the task becomes locked/invisible to others, and what the lease guarantees.

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?

One compact sentence with the key mechanism (atomic take of the oldest ready task) front-loaded and zero wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a task-dequeuing tool the description should still cover the empty-queue behavior and lease implications. It is minimally adequate but leaves real operational questions open.

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% and the single parameter lease_seconds is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no explanation of what the lease controls or the consequence of its 60-second default. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("atomicky převezme nejstarší připravený task pro tohoto agenta") — atomically takes the oldest ready task for this agent — which is far more informative than the bare name next_task. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling "claim", which likely overlaps in purpose, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the near-synonym sibling "claim" versus this tool. The worker-pull pattern is only implied by the wording, not stated.

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