queue_next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing the selection semantics: items must be tagged #queue and items blocked on the user via #needs-me are skipped. The notable remaining gap is what happens when the queue is empty (null, error, or empty string).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed immediately by the exclusion rule. Every clause carries information; there is no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 zero-required-parameter, non-destructive read with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what the agent needs to decide and call. The only missing piece an agent might care about is the empty-queue return behavior, which matters because the tool promises 'the next item'.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter auto_only already documents its #auto filtering meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds context about the default unfiltered behavior by describing the base selection rule, but it does not itself explain the auto_only parameter or its default.

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 names the precise resource and selection rule: 'the next open item of the work queue (tasks tagged #queue)', with an explicit exclusion of '#needs-me'. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but an agent can immediately tell it retrieves a single next item rather than listing or adding to the queue, distinguishing it from queue_add and the note-oriented 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?

Usage is implied by 'the next open item' — call it to pull the next work item — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to call it, and no named alternative (e.g., search or list_notes) for retrieving multiple or filtered items. The tag-scoping rules are helpful context but don't constitute guidance on tool selection.

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