get_next_completion_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the tool's non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as return format or edge cases (e.g., no incomplete paths). With annotations present, the description provides minimal added value.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and criterion, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (0 parameters, no output schema). The description adequately explains the purpose but does not specify the return format (e.g., whether it returns a path object or only the order_index). Given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete, though slightly more detail about the return value would be helpful.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this without adding unnecessary information.

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 'Get lowest order_index with status != completed' directly states the action (get) and the specific criterion (lowest order_index that is not completed). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_all_completion_paths or get_completion_paths_by_status, which have different filtering or scoping.

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 for retrieving the next incomplete completion path, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_incomplete_completion_paths or get_completion_paths_by_status. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, which is a minor gap given the many sibling tools for completion paths.

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