suggest_next_subgoal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the outcome (returns a ready subgoal or blocked_by list) and mentions the dependency graph, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or authorization requirements. The behavior is adequately described for a read-like tool.

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 (3 sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and includes only relevant information: version, function, return cases, and usage hint. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough context: purpose, return types, and a hint about dependency graph. It could benefit from clarifying the structure of blocked_by list, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the description for goal_id being 'Goal ID.' The main description does not add additional semantics or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 clearly states the action ('suggest the next executable subgoal') and specific context ('based on the dependency graph'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like accept_subgoal or reject_subgoal by focusing on task sequencing.

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 tells when to use the tool ('to drive goal-directed task sequencing') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage context is clear, but exclusions are missing.

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