task_next

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the selection logic (planned status, dependencies satisfied, phase gate met), but says nothing about what is returned when no task qualifies, whether results are per-owner, or whether selection is deterministic.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, putting the core purpose before the qualifying criteria. It is dense but efficient, with only mild opacity in jargon like 'phase gate'.

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 simple single-task read with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers selection logic but omits the empty-result behavior and the meaning of the owner parameter. These are the two gaps an agent would need in order to call and interpret it confidently.

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?

There is one optional 'owner' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry its meaning, and it never mentions owner or scoping. An agent cannot tell from this text whether 'owner' filters the queue or how it interacts with the selection criteria.

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 verb 'Show' plus the precise resource 'the one task that may start now' makes it clear this returns a single ready task rather than a list, which distinguishes it from task_list. The selection criteria (queue head, planned, dependencies met, phase gate met) sharpen the purpose, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implicitly conveyed by 'may start now', which signals this is the tool for picking the next actionable task. However, it names no alternative (task_list, task_claim, task_render) and gives no exclusion or prerequisite guidance, so an agent must infer when to prefer it.

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