delimit_next_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states side effects ('read-only on the ledger'), and specifies return values as action types (BUILD, CONSENSUS, STOP). This provides clear behavioral expectations.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then provides usage guidelines, sibling contrast, side effects, and return values. Every sentence adds value, and the total length is appropriate.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple return types, sibling tools, optional parameters), the description covers all necessary context: usage, behavior, return values, and distinctions. There is no output schema provided, but the description adequately explains return information.

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%, meaning all 3 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies. No extra semantic value is added.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the next task to work on with safeguard checks (Pro).' It clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (next task), and key feature (safeguard checks). The sibling contrast further distinguishes it from related tools (delimit_task_complete and delimit_ledger_list).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('inside a loop session, to fetch the highest-priority open task with safeguard checks') and when-not-to-use guidance ('to mark a task done (use delimit_task_complete) or list all tasks (delimit_ledger_list)'). It also includes sibling contrast for additional clarity.

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