Next best action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool analyzes stored engagement state, returns 3-5 actions, includes evidence/completion conditions/tool recommendations, and is prescriptive ('do this this week') rather than theoretical. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'diagnose and return' implies no mutation.

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 bilingual description is compact and front-loaded: the first clause states the core function, followed by output details and a clarifying intent phrase. The 'not chapter 7 but this week' sentence is illustrative rather than redundant, though the Japanese/English duplication occupies extra space.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently characterizes the return value (3-5 prioritized actions with reason, completion condition, and tool). It also signals the prerequisite that an engagement must already be stored/saved. It could be more explicit about error conditions or behavior when no stored engagement exists, but is otherwise complete.

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% and both parameters are self-described enums with defaults (lang, horizon). The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action: diagnose the stored engagement across named dimensions and return 3-5 concrete, prioritized actions with reason, completion condition, and tool. This is far more specific than a generic 'next best action' label and clearly distinguishes it from sibling planning/diagnostic tools.

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 phrasing '今週これをやれ' implies it is for users who want actionable next steps rather than generic guidance, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings like prioritize_work_packages, assess_readiness, or check_engagement_health. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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