memory_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that it is non-mutating (does not claim or start work), describes the null-result case ('suggestion:null when no actionable work is found'), and explains that agentId accounts for leases held by other agents. It stops short of covering auth or rate-limit behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, followed by the exact non-mutating caveat and the routing alternatives. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema present, the description compensates by describing the returned fields (action ID, title, priority, score, counts) and the null case. Combined with the routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: agentId is not just an identifier but a mechanism that makes the suggestion account for leases held by other agents, and project scopes the frontier. That is meaning beyond the terse schema labels.

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 ('Suggest the highest-ranked action from memory_frontier') with clear scope tied to optional project and agentId. The return shape is summarized, and the distinction from siblings memory_frontier and memory_lease is made explicit, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says what it does NOT do ('does not claim the action or start work') and routes the agent: use memory_lease to acquire, memory_frontier to compare candidates. When-to-use and the specific alternative for each adjacent need are named.

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