What should I work on now?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It still adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the full prioritization ordering, the fact that blocked auto-fixes come with an unblock action, and the stateful dependency ('since you last looked'), which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the priority ordering before the return shape and usage trigger, and every sentence earns its place. The single dense run-on sentence with nested parentheticals is slightly harder to parse than a bulleted ordering would be, keeping it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it does so concisely and adds the stateful 'since you last looked' caveat plus the read-only guarantee. For a zero-required-parameter triage tool this is essentially complete; only the absence of a when-not/alternative pointer is a minor gap.

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 (projectId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the UUID format, default behavior, and the project_id alias. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable when the schema does the heavy lifting; 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 resource ('Prioritised "do this next" list for the project') with an explicit ordered scope, and it is immediately distinguishable from siblings like triage_issue, search_reports, or get_recent_reports. The priority ordering is spelled out, so the agent knows exactly what class of output this produces.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger and routing instruction: 'Call this first when the user asks "what needs my attention / what should I triage or fix".' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name when-not to use it or point to a specific alternative (e.g., triage_issue, search_reports), so it stops short of a 5.

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