Request Next

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'It changes nothing,' making the read-only behavior clear. It also points to the mutation path via request_mark when the request starts, though it does not describe what happens if no requests are waiting.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key concept: 'The first waiting request.' Every clause adds useful information about returned content, read-only behavior, or the follow-up call.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, that it mutates nothing, and how to proceed after reading. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit empty-queue behavior.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain beyond the schema. The description correctly focuses on what is returned and the follow-up action rather than inventing parameter details.

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 identifies the resource and subset: the first waiting request, including what it contains and how many requests are behind it. It also distinguishes the read action from the follow-up request_mark call. A specific verb like 'returns' is absent, but the purpose is still easy to infer.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow cue: the DJ reads it at a phrase end, and calls request_mark(id, 'playing') when playback starts. However, it does not explain when to use this versus request_list, request_where, or request_credits, so alternatives are only implied by the phrase 'first waiting request.'

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