next_step

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — that the response includes the server-side gate that will be validated on completion — but omits the key edge case: what is returned when no step is ready (empty vs error).

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?

One sentence, verb-first, with the returned content front-loaded as a compact list. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't document return shapes, and with one fully documented required parameter the call mechanics are clear. The only real omission is the no-ready-step behavior, which matters for a 'next' style tool an agent may poll.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with its provenance and format ('Project id from start_project, e.g. p-1a2b3c4d'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline given full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the ready step(s) of a project') and enumerates the payload: instructions, tools, rendered prompt text, and the completion gate. This distinguishes it well from get_project (project metadata), update_step (mutation), and get_prompt_text. It stops short of naming a sibling it is explicitly not, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Sequencing is implied: this is the step you fetch before doing work, and the description hints that the returned gate matters 'when the step is marked done', implying a later update_step call. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative tool is named, leaving routing to inference.

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