next_spec_chunk

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses a side effect: 'drafts the spec on first call', which alerts the agent that this is not a pure read operation. It does not fully describe all state changes or return behavior, but this is meaningful disclosure for a short description.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with the main action front-loaded and the side effect contained in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the action, the purpose, and an important first-call side effect. It could additionally clarify how chunks are delivered or what the agent should do after receiving them, but given the low complexity and the sibling workflow, it is mostly 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 0%, and the description does not explain how 'project_id' should be used or where it comes from. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's 'Project Id' title, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Get') and specific resource ('next spec chunk') and clearly states the purpose: 'to show the user for sign-off'. The parenthetical 'drafts the spec on first call' adds an important distinguishing behavioral detail, setting it apart from related tools like review_spec_chunk.

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 the next spec chunk needs to be presented to the user for sign-off. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives, but the 'next chunk' phrasing implies the workflow position without ambiguity.

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