Returns the next required build job with exact instructions, allowed files, needed text, and verification steps so you can complete one task at a time.
Your ONE next job in the build: what to do, the only files you may change, the text you need, and how it will be checked. Do only this job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds useful context about the shape of the returned job and the strict scope limit on file changes, but it never discloses how the tool itself is destructive — whether calling it consumes or advances the build plan, or whether it is idempotent. For a destructive operation that is a meaningful omission.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'ONE' emphasis and the closing imperative are efficient; no filler text.
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, so the description must describe the return value and it does so at a high level, which is adequate. But for a destructive, zero-parameter state-advancing tool, it is missing sequencing rules, repeat-call behavior, and how the returned job relates to build_harness_submit and build_harness_status.
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 no parameters, so there are none to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does enumerate the payload the caller receives, which is helpful framing even though it is not a parameter.
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 action (fetch the one next job in a build) and enumerates the payload it returns: what to do, the only files you may change, the text you need, and how it will be checked. That is far more concrete than the name alone. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'next', which could plausibly mean the same thing, so it stops short of a 5.
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' constrains what to do with the result but says nothing about when to call this tool versus 'next', 'build_harness_status', 'build_harness_submit', or 'readiness'. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.