next_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it describes the selection logic, the default candidate status, the tiebreaker rule, and the edge case of returning null with a reason and a blocked list. This is comprehensive for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences long, with key information front-loaded: the purpose and then details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema or annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the core logic, tiebreaker, and error handling. It could be improved by describing the return object structure more explicitly, but it still provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema for three parameters: candidate_statuses (default pending), agent (optional filter), and changed_files (optional filter). It mentions 'dependencies done' which is not an explicit parameter but is implied behavior. However, it does not explain workspace_root (required) or done_statuses, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Pick the next ready task' with specific criteria (candidate status, dependencies done, optional filter). It differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on task scheduling and sequencing, which is distinct from other operations like listing, updating, or classifying tasks.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to get the next ready task) and what to expect (tiebreaker priority then id, returns null with reason). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, which would improve guidance.

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