next_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is safe to call at any point, implying no destructive side effects, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior in error states. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, and the structure is effective.

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 tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context for the tool's role and when to call it. However, it lacks explanation of the parameter and edge cases, making it somewhat incomplete.

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 description does not mention the sole parameter 'session_id', its purpose, format, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from context alone.

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 tool's purpose: it is an authoritative resolver that returns the exact next tool to call and a directive based on session state and mode. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the resolver for next action.

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 it is safe to call at any point in the session lifecycle, listing various stages. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for proper usage.

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