Returns pending jobs to execute and flags tasks awaiting human approval for a workspace run, clarifying what agents can do now and what needs human input.
What to do now: jobs to execute (with brief and allowed paths) and what waits for a human.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | No | Run id; defaults to the latest run. | |
| workspace | Yes | Current workspace root holding sdd-workspace.yml. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description reads like a pure query ('what to do now ... what waits for a human') and never discloses what the tool actually changes, whether it mutates run state, or whether repeated calls advance anything. With a non-read-only, non-idempotent tool, that side effect is exactly what the description needed to surface.
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?
It is short, but it is a single colon-fragment with no main clause and no front-loaded statement of what the tool is. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than from efficient editing.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, yet it only gestures at two vague shapes ('jobs with brief and allowed paths', 'what waits for a human') without structure, and it omits the mutation semantics that a non-read-only tool requires. For a runtime-orchestration entry point among many sibling tools, this is not enough to call it safely.
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% (both 'run' and 'workspace' have descriptions), so the schema carries the parameter burden and 3 is the baseline. The description adds nothing about how workspace or run selection affects the returned jobs, so no credit above baseline.
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 is a sentence fragment ('What to do now: jobs to execute ... and what waits for a human') that never states a verb+resource, never mentions the workspace or run concepts the tool operates on, and gives no hint of how it differs from siblings like architect_runtime_status, architect_runtime_plan, or architect_task_claim. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this computes the next runtime step, returns a status snapshot, or advances state.
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?
There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the 28 siblings. 'What to do now' implies a planning or advisory moment, but the agent is left to infer that versus architect_runtime_plan or architect_runtime_tick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.