next_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation by the verb 'Get' and clarifies selection criteria, but it does not state whether the tool modifies state, how it handles the absence of a task (e.g., returns null or errors), or what 'current phase' entails. More explicit behavioral detail would be valuable.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and each qualifier (highest-priority, ready to work on, dependencies met, current phase) adds essential meaning.

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?

Given a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core function and selection criteria well. It falls slightly short by not addressing edge cases (e.g., no task available) and not clarifying potential overlap with next_best_action, but overall it is adequate for a task-selection tool.

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 only parameter, path, is already fully described in the schema as 'Project root directory.' The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage (100%).

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('highest-priority task that is ready to work on'), with explicit selection criteria ('dependencies met, current phase'). This distinguishes it from generic listing tools like list_tasks and gives a clear sense of purpose.

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 phrase 'ready to work on' conveys the intended use case: retrieving the next actionable task. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as next_best_action, which could serve a similar purpose, so there is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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