get_operating_loop_next_action

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds the critical behavioral guarantee that reading does not advance the loop or dispatch a write, which prevents an agent from assuming a cursor-like peek has side effects. No annotation contradiction is present.

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?

One focused sentence with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded, and the negative side-effect guarantee 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?

With readOnly/idempotent annotations and an output schema present, the core behavior is well covered. The main completeness gap is that parameter semantics and alternatives must be inferred from names and sibling context rather than stated.

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% and the description gives no parameter-specific guidance. The parameter names (company_ref, project_ref, loop_ref, run_ref) are reasonably self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('next governed action'), and explicitly scopes the operation with 'without advancing or dispatching a write.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and separates it from operating-loop tools that start, cancel, or report status.

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 phrase 'Read the next governed action without advancing...' gives clear context: use this when you need a side-effect-free peek at the next action. It does not name an alternative tool for when advancing or dispatching is the goal, so it stops short of the strongest guidance.

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