What should I work on now?

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints, and the description reinforces the read-only nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral value by exposing the internal priority ordering and the fact that steps include 'tool' and 'args' for follow-up actions. This tells the agent that the tool only recommends actions rather than executing them.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: the exact ordering policy, the items included, the return shape, the read-only behavior, and the trigger phrase are all packed into two short sentences. The key decision information is front-loaded with 'Prioritised do this next list' and ends with a clear usage trigger.

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 a simple one-parameter optional schema, a full output schema, and annotations covering read-only and idempotence, the description covers what is needed: what the tool returns, its prioritization logic, and when to invoke it. There is no significant missing context that would prevent correct selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, project_id, with a clear default behavior. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because the schema fully documents the parameter. This is the appropriate baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a prioritised 'do this next' list for the project. It also clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by defining the ordering of blocks (blocked auto-fixes, in-flight fixes, user-felt reports, chores) and by giving an explicit call-to-action phrase. An agent can tell this is the global triage summarizer rather than a report-detail or fix-action tool.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this first when the user asks...'. It also implies this is a starting point rather than a detailed analysis or mutation tool. However, it does not explicitly name when NOT to call it or point to an alternative sibling, so it falls just short of the highest guidance level.

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