conduyt_ai_next_actions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully imply a non-mutating read (it 'returns a prioritized list of suggested actions'), which matters given the sibling conduyt_ai_execute_actions, but it omits cost/latency of AI ranking, whether results are cached, whether the list is bounded, and any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core concept, with a parenthetical that usefully enumerates action types. The opening fragment 'AI-ranked next actions' largely repeats the tool name and could be folded into the substantive sentence.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about the returned list's shape (fields per action, ordering, length). As written, an agent knows the gist but not what it will actually receive.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents userId and its default to the authenticated user. The phrase 'for a user' in the description duplicates rather than extends that, adding no format or scoping detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete output: a prioritized list of suggested actions, with three illustrative categories (replies, deals, tasks). This is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby AI siblings such as conduyt_ai_agenda, conduyt_ai_plan_actions, conduyt_ai_feed, or conduyt_reply_suggestion, so an agent cannot route confidently among them from this text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no stated relationship to conduyt_ai_execute_actions or conduyt_ai_plan_actions. The agent must infer that these are read-only suggestions rather than executable actions.

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