whodb_platform_next_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: suggestions are 'deterministic' and 'advisory only', and backend permissions plus write confirmations still apply, which sets correct expectations about trust and follow-through.

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?

Three tight sentences, each front-loaded with purpose, then when-to-use, then behavioral caveats and parameter scope. No filler and no repetition of structured fields beyond what carries meaning.

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?

Read-only annotations plus 100% schema coverage and no output schema mean the definition carries a light load, and it addresses purpose, sequencing, advisory nature and targeting. It does not characterize the shape of the returned suggestions (the fields param hints at actions/warnings/goal), leaving a modest gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 5 parameters is already documented. The description restates the workspace {host, org, project} per-call targeting semantics, but adds nothing beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Return), a specific resource (deterministic suggested next actions), and scope (selected hosted project). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as a 'deeper action-ranking view' relative to whodb_platform_workspace_summary and whodb_platform_gap_analysis.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool: as a deeper action-ranking view after whodb_platform_workspace_summary or whodb_platform_gap_analysis, naming the alternatives by name. No when-not guidance or exclusion conditions are given, which keeps it short of a 5.

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