what_should_i_do_next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioural context beyond them: what sources are synthesised and that every item carries a HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW ranking with a stated rationale, which tells the agent what kind of judgement output to expect.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core output (a prioritised to-do list) is front-loaded before the source list. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Complexity is low (no parameters) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out; annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately covers inputs and output shape, with the only real gap being guidance on when this beats the overlapping briefing tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 artifact (a prioritised to-do list) and enumerates the inputs that feed it — overdue work, due dates, submission status, calendar deadlines, announcements — plus the ranking explanation. That is enough to distinguish it from the narrow siblings like overdue_assignments or upcoming_assignments, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly aggregating daily_briefing/weekly_briefing.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With many overlapping siblings (daily_briefing, weekly_briefing, workload_analysis, overdue_assignments), the agent is left to infer whether this tool supersedes or complements them; nothing in the text routes the choice.

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