build_harness_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the payload shape and a scoping constraint ('the only files you may change'), but never says whether calling it advances harness state, whether it is idempotent, or how it behaves when the build is complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned payload and closes with the key constraint. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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, no annotations, and no parameters, so the description is the sole source of truth. It covers what comes back but omits stateful workflow behavior (advancing, completion, re-invocation), leaving a real gap for a multi-step harness 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 resource and payload: the next job in a build, including the task, the only editable files, the text needed, and the check. This tells an agent what it gets, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from near-name siblings like 'next' or 'build_harness_status'.

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?

'Do only this job' implies this is the tool to call to obtain the next unit of work, but it names no alternatives and gives no condition for choosing it over 'build_harness_status' or 'build_harness_briefs'. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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