What to work on next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavioral value by defining what 'actionable' means (unblocked, unclaimed or claimed by you) and the ranking logic (highest priority first), which are non-obvious behaviors not in annotations.

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 sentences, zero waste. The purpose statement and the guiding question are both front-loaded and directly actionable. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only ranking tool with an output schema present, full parameter schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete. It explains what it ranks, the filtering rules, and the ordering logic. No gaps that would confuse an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The area parameter description is useful ('Project-declared, so the accepted values vary; project_workspace reports them'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. The actor and limit parameters are adequately described in the schema and the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Rank actionable cards' with clear scope (unblocked, unclaimed or claimed by you, highest priority first). The description directly answers the question 'what should I do now', distinguishing it from card_list (listing), card_create (creating), etc. Clearly distinct from siblings.

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 states it ranks actionable cards with defined inclusion criteria and explicitly frames it as an answer to 'what should I do now'. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, the purpose framing plus sibling context (card_list, search) makes the usage situation clear. Could add exclusions for alternatives but the core context is present.

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