Taskgraph Next

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes no side effects, and the description reinforces a read-only query of pending tasks. It adds useful context about ordering and dependency filtering, though it does not detail any response shape or limits.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Three short sentences convey the behavior and usage guidance efficiently.

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 the simple parameter set and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's role and invocation timing. It does not need to describe return values because an output schema is available, but a brief note on limit behavior would make it fully complete.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is not described in the tool description and schema coverage is 0%. While the parameter name is intuitive, the description does not compensate by explaining how the limit affects the returned task list.

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?

Clearly describes what the tool does: returns pending tasks with satisfied dependencies, ordered by priority, each carrying the discovery that created it. It is distinct from taskgraph_update and taskgraph_view by focusing on 'next' actionable items.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call it after every phase rather than re-deriving the plan from scratch, giving a clear condition for when to use it. This effectively differentiates it from a full plan-rebuilding workflow.

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