progress_next

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-explain safety. It adds 'based on local progress', which indicates it reads some local state, but it does not describe how progress is obtained, what happens with no progress, or the format of the recommendation. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich in additional behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and context without any wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description provides a clear general outcome. However, it does not explain what the recommender returns (e.g., a topic object, a title) or how 'unlearned' is determined. This is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter ('roadmap' with slug pattern and example). The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'roadmap' in prose. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter 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 ('Recommend') and clearly identifies the resource ('next unlearned topic for a roadmap') and context ('based on local progress'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like progress_status (which likely shows status) and progress_mark (which likely records progress).

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 implies the tool should be used when a user wants to know what to learn next on a roadmap given existing progress. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like progress_status or roadmap_diagnose, nor does it name any excluded scenarios. This is adequate but not explicit guidance.

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