next_pick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output contents and that the tool is intentionally lightweight, but it does not mention potential limitations, error conditions, or whether it performs any side effects. Some transparency is present, but not comprehensive.

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, direct, and front-loaded. It conveys the purpose and key output details without unnecessary jargon or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify the parameter's role and possibly outline output format or caveats. It explains the overall purpose but leaves the parameter ambiguous and omits edge-case behavior, making it incomplete for a tool that requires user input.

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 only parameter, 'candidates', is not described in the schema or the description. The schema provides only type and default, with zero coverage. The description does not compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning entirely unclear.

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 that this is the go-to call when making a pick, and specifies exactly what it returns: best available players, roster fit, tier cliff, and time until next turn. This distinguishes it from general draft tools despite not explicitly naming 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?

It explicitly says to use it 'when you are on the clock' and notes it is 'deliberately small' for a 60-second draft clock, giving a clear temporal trigger. However, it could more explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_draft_context or record_pick to fully guide selection.

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