codesweep_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering ('insertion order'), the definition of 'unprocessed', and precise limit semantics including edge cases: '0 means NO items', 'omit it to use the sweep's own default batch size', and 'A negative value is an error (it used to mean no limit)'. This is strong behavioral context, though it doesn't mention side effects or permissions (likely none for a get operation).

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 efficient: a single summary sentence followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, especially the detailed limit explanation which prevents misuse. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool of this complexity, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter context. Return values are presumably handled by the output schema, so lack of return documentation is acceptable. Minor omissions like explicit idempotency or 'does this consume the items' are not critical given the 'Get' framing, but could have been slightly stronger.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: each parameter is explained with meaningful semantics beyond the schema. sweep_ref gets format hints, limit gets detailed behavior including override and error cases, and tags gets filtering semantics. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly defined resource: 'next batch of unprocessed (non-terminal, non-archived) items in insertion order.' This goes beyond the name and conveys the exact scope. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling differentiation, but the behavior is distinct enough that an agent understands what it does.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the next batch of unprocessed items in a sweep. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives such as codesweep_list_items or pull_next, nor any 'when not to use' statement. This is implied rather than stated, so it earns a 3.

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