get_next_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to explain how 'high-priority' is determined, whether the tool is read-only, or what the ordering or filtering criteria are. The return format is not described, though an output schema exists (not shown). This lack of detail limits the agent's understanding of side effects and expectations.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. It conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail. However, given the lack of parameter and usage guidance, it may be too brief for the agent to use effectively.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown), so the description may be adequate for basic understanding. However, the absence of usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and parameter semantics leaves gaps that reduce completeness. The presence of many sibling tools increases the need for more contextual detail, which is not provided.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'limit' with a default of 10, but no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not explain that 'limit' controls the maximum number of returned tasks, nor does it provide any other parameter guidance. The agent must guess the parameter's purpose.

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 retrieves high-priority actionable tasks for the next work step. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and implies a filtered view distinct from sibling tools like 'list_tasks' or 'get_inbox'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives such as 'get_inbox' which may also surface tasks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'list_tasks' or 'start_task'. There is no mention of prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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