fow_what_next

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world, but the description adds real context: no code execution and no provider probes, plus that output arrives as bounded pages to be followed. It stops short of describing limits on the projection itself.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then cleanly separates Prerequisites and Effects, so an agent can scan the constraints it needs. The trailing 'Exact help' pointer is somewhat meta boilerplate but is compact and self-contained.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and the description covers prerequisites, read-only effects and pagination behavior for a 6-parameter tool. The main residual gap is explicit guidance on which sibling to call when the agent intends to act on the suggested work.

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 100%, so limit, offset, scope_id, project_id, detail_level and milestone_id are all documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at project/scope/milestone selection and adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it finds 'the next bounded lifecycle action' derived from gates, dependencies, requirements and evidence. It also implicitly separates itself from execution siblings by asserting that reading the projection does not execute work, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite ('select existing project/scope and optional milestone, then follow returned bounded pages') and notes it is a single direct operation with no operation argument. The contrast with execution tools is implied rather than stated, so the when-not condition is left to inference.

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