next_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals useful logic: existing artifact types determine outstanding tasks, and staffed_roles triggers owner reassignment via a fallback chain. However, it does not clarify whether this operation is read-only, what the fallback chain precisely does, or what happens when staffed_roles is omitted, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional staffed_roles behavior is stated in a separate clause. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the inputs, the conditional behavior, and what is returned. Minor gaps remain around output format, read-only guarantees, and fallback chain details, but an agent can infer correct invocation.

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%, so the description must add meaning, and it does: 'work category' maps to category, 'artifact types that already exist' maps to existing_artifact_types, and staffed_roles is explained as triggering owner reassignment. It covers all three parameters semantically and explains their role in the computation, though it doesn't enumerate value formats.

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 uses a specific verb ('return'), a clear resource ('tasks still outstanding'), and states who owns them. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_work_categories or list_artifact_types by focusing on next tasks rather than listing categories or artifact types.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a work category and existing artifact types and need outstanding tasks. It also explains when to pass staffed_roles. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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