next_step

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral contract beyond the annotations: the instruction to call only the recommended tool next and the conditional recommendation logic. It does not add side-effect details because none exist, but it does add operational behavior that is not in the structured fields.

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 two short paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second paragraph delivers precise usage rules. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 has zero parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, how to sequence calls, and which sibling alternatives to prefer. There are no missing pieces that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. It mentions external context (URL/bucket, prereqs) but that is not parameter input, so no further semantic detail is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('single current checklist blocker + recommended Helper tools'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as a coach that recommends the next step. It clearly tells the agent what the tool produces without needing to open the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call only the recommended tool next', a conditional rule for set_prereq when URL/bucket is named and prereqs are unset, and a preference for zeus-helper:// + readiness_check / smoke_test_zeus over hand-rolled curl. This is rich, actionable guidance that selects among siblings (set_prereq, readiness_check, smoke_test_zeus).

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