get_ready_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly uses 'Get', indicating a read-only operation, and clearly states the selection criteria. It does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., empty results) or further behavioral details, but for a simple getter, this is sufficiently transparent.

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 sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds meaning, with no redundant fluff or unnecessary details.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the purpose and return type (task nodes). It could be slightly more explicit about the return format or fields, but the context is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. It does not mislead or introduce confusion about inputs.

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 specifies the action (get) and the resource (task nodes), with a precise condition (dependencies and phase gates satisfied). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_graph_state, which retrieves the entire graph, and start_task, which begins work.

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—use when you want to know which tasks are ready—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, so guidance is limited to the implied context.

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