next

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so this is a mutating, potentially destructive operation, yet the description frames it as a benign query about what to do next and says nothing about what state changes or is destroyed. The framing actively works against the annotation signal rather than supplementing it.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy; the scoping hint is front-loaded while the actual behavior is absent.

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 destructive, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum state what the tool returns and what side effect it has. Neither is covered, and no annotations detail compensates beyond the raw hints.

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% for the single 'pipeline' parameter, so the description carries the burden and only partially does so: the example 'debian-kernel' hints at identifier format, but nothing explains accepted values, naming conventions, or what an invalid pipeline yields.

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 phrase 'the one next thing to do' restates the tool name 'next' rather than naming a concrete operation or return type. It mentions a pipeline scope, but an agent cannot tell whether this returns a recommended step, advances state, or both, and it is not distinguished from siblings such as run, readiness, or build_harness_next.

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?

'For a pipeline (e.g. debian-kernel)' only narrows the input domain; there is no statement of when to call this versus run, undo, readiness, or describe. No prerequisites, no ordering guidance, and no exclusions are given.

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