request_next_phase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the blocking behavior, the reason behind it (prevent context collapse), and the streaming nature. This goes beyond a simple action statement, though it could mention side effects or idempotency.

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 three sentences that each add unique value: action, condition, and rationale. It is front-loaded with the action and concise without wasted words.

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 no output schema and 2 undocumented parameters, the description lacks important context such as return format, when exactly to call (beyond evidence requirement), and parameter roles. It covers the core behavior but leaves gaps for a new user to understand full usage.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter meaning or usage. Without compensation, the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states that the tool streams the next loop section, with a specific blocking condition (PHASE_SKIP unless evidence recorded). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'loop_next' by highlighting the blocking behavior and the motivation to prevent large context collapses.

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 usage by noting the blocking condition (requires recorded evidence), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The context about preventing 300+ lines gives some guidance, but it is not explicit enough for clear alternative choice.

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