next_question

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value with the selection semantics (first *unresolved blocking* question, position relative to `after`) and the returned label/count, but says nothing about behavior at exhaustion (what happens when no open questions remain) or ordering guarantees beyond the `after` cursor.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and the return shape, with the cursor rule packed into a short parenthetical. No filler, no repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly spends words on the return value (`id` label plus count remaining). The main shortfall is the undocumented `collection` parameter and the unstated terminal case, but overall it is sufficient for a read-only single-record fetch.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the `after` cursor semantics that the schema already documents in near-identical terms, adds no format detail for `ref`, and leaves the undocumented `collection` parameter completely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 resource and scope: the next unresolved blocking question within one initiative, including the return payload (label `id` + remaining count). This is clearly distinct from siblings like `questions`, `add_question`, or `resolve_question`, though the description never names an alternative to contrast against.

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?

"Drives the design-review conversation" gives a usage context, implying it is the iterative walk through open questions. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs `questions` (full list) or `ready`, and no when-not guidance or prerequisite (e.g. does the initiative need an active design review?).

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