blockers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses a non-trivial ranking algorithm (transitive dependence, dependency-ordered unblockedBy) and the output layout. The 'Answers' framing suggests a non-mutating query, though read-only safety and data freshness are not explicitly stated.

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 dense sentences deliver question, algorithm, ordering, and output content without filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-style tool with an output schema and fully described optional parameters, the description is nearly self-sufficient. It could be stronger by pointing to sibling tools for when a simpler list or ready-task view is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no details beyond the schema about limit, branch, or project, and does not tie them to the ranking behavior.

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 opens with the exact question the tool answers and then specifies the ranking mechanism (transitive wait) and that the first entry is the biggest bottleneck. This clear verb+resource distinguishes blockers from sibling list/read tools even without naming them.

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 provides an explicit trigger ('Answers: what is the biggest blocker right now?') and explains what the ranking is for, giving an agent clear context for when to call it. It does not name alternatives like list_ready or prereqs or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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