bot_next

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

The word 'advance' plus 'repeat until finish' conveys that calls are progressive and stateful, aligning with idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true; this is useful loop semantics beyond the annotations. However, it never surfaces the destructive/non-readonly nature the annotations declare, and 'returns the next step' could mislead an agent into treating this as a pure read.

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 dense sentences with the verb and sequencing front-loaded and zero filler; the step enumeration is compact and functional.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail needn't be restated, and the description covers the loop framing and termination condition. It could do more to flag the side-effecting nature of each advance, but it is largely complete for a driver tool.

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% and the single 'project' parameter is already documented as 'the bot project named in the job's prompt'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Advance a bot run'), names the sibling that precedes it (bot_start) and the terminal state (finish). Enumerating the possible step outcomes (wait, triage, screen, fetch, wiki, finish) lets an agent distinguish this state-machine driver from siblings like get_run_status or bot_finish.

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 sequences the call: invoke after bot_start and repeat until finish. This is strong when-to-use guidance within a loop, though it does not state when-not to use it (e.g., versus get_run_status for pure inspection).

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