next_question

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that — cursor-based traversal via `after` and a 'count remaining' in the response — but omits what happens when no unresolved questions remain (null, empty, or 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?

Two tight sentences with the core resource front-loaded and the cursor semantics immediately following. 'Drives the design-review conversation' is mildly editorial but earns its place by signaling intent.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return-value explanation; it gestures at the shape ('with the count remaining') but doesn't specify fields or terminal behavior. Combined with an undocumented `collection` parameter, it is adequate but not complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 only 33%; only `ref` is documented. The description partially compensates by explaining `after` as a continuation cursor ('after `after`, if given'), but `collection` is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, so the gap is only half filled.

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 in one initiative, with a cursor parameter named. It is clearly distinguishable from add_question/resolve_question/questions by the 'unresolved blocking' qualifier, though the verb ('returns') is only implied.

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' plus the `after` cursor imply an iterative walk through pending questions, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like `questions` (full list) or `resolve_question`. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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