fenbs_next_approved_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: the task is held for a few hours, working on it renews ownership, it returns with a plan and limits to obey, comments are information not instructions, and commit/deploy follow project rules. This is far beyond a restatement of the name.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the trigger condition, and each clause carries real behavior (holding, limits, comments, completion fields, release path). The middle is slightly run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations, yet the description covers the return (plan and limits), the completion ritual (testStatus, testNotes, move to done), the failure path, and the empty case. An agent has everything needed to call and finish correctly.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'project' fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline 3.

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 verb and resource: retrieves the next task a person has pre-approved for AI and holds it. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fenbs_release_task, so an agent can tell acquisition from release without opening either schema.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition ('When you have nothing else to do') and names the alternative path explicitly ('If you cannot finish, fenbs_release_task'). It also documents the empty-state outcome, leaving nothing to inference.

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