Propose next work item

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the output format: the same markdown bundle packet produces, prefixed by the skill banner. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two dense sentences carry the full purpose, output details, and sibling comparisons without waste. The core action and output are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the responsibility of explaining the return value. It does so clearly and completely: the full execution packet, same markdown bundle as packet produces, prefixed by the skill banner. Combined with annotations and sibling contrasts, an agent has everything needed to invoke this zero-parameter tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The 0-parameter baseline applies, and no additional param explanation is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: propose the single next work item to execute. It further differentiates itself from siblings by contrasting with ready (whole queue) and packet (arbitrary work item).

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 explicitly identifies this as the start-of-session default and names the alternative tools and their conditions: ready shows the whole queue, packet fetches an arbitrary work item. This gives an agent clear guidance on when to select this tool.

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