suggest_next_subgoal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a ready subgoal with dependencies accepted, or a blocked_by list otherwise. Implies read-only behavior (querying state) but does not explicitly state lack of side effects.

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, no wasted words. First sentence defines function and return, second sentence adds use context. Front-loaded with key information.

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 simple query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description completely explains behavior and return types (subgoal or blocked_by list). No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter 'goal_id' with schema description 'Goal ID.' Tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 3, the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'suggest' and resource 'next executable subgoal' with context 'dependency graph'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_subgoal, reject_subgoal, read_goal, and list_goals by focusing on sequencing and dependency-based selection.

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?

States when to use: 'based on the dependency graph' and 'Use to drive goal-directed task sequencing.' Does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough given sibling names.

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