tasks_next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context such as dependency readiness, leaf-item filtering, and first-unfinished-sprint scoping, but it does not describe ordering, return shape, or edge cases.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the key scoping criteria before any implied usage.

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 read-only tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers the core selection logic well. However, with no output schema, it could say more about the returned item shape or ordering, which leaves a modest gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters (count and assignee) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the exact selection criteria: next ready, unfinished leaf items with dependencies met, in the first unfinished sprint. This clearly distinguishes it from broader listing siblings like tasks_list and tasks_sprint, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 selection criteria imply when to use this tool — when the agent needs the next actionable item from the first unfinished sprint. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over tasks_list, tasks_sprint, or tasks_brief, nor any exclusions.

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