get_ready_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the filtering condition (dependencies fully resolved), sort order (by priority), and the meaning of an empty result (all done or blocked). This exceeds basic expectations, though it doesn't mention potential errors or side effects (likely read-only).

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 three sentences, each adding value: the trigger and core function, the practical use, and the interpretation of empty results. No redundant information is present, making it highly efficient.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers when to call it, what it returns, how results are sorted, and what an empty list means. There are no gaps for a user to guess.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. For 0-parameter tools, the baseline is 4, and the description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns and how to interpret the result. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns all tasks whose dependencies are fully resolved, sorted by priority'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from get_all_tasks by focusing only on ready tasks. The added context about working on these tasks next reinforces its purpose.

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 explicitly instructs to 'CALL AFTER EVERY update_task', providing a clear trigger for usage. It also explains what to do with the output ('tasks you should work on next'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks full when/when-not guidance.

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