whats_next

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the four components of the response (briefing, in-progress issues, queue, urgent work), making the tool's behavior predictable. No side effects or contradictions are present.

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 paragraph of three sentences, efficiently conveying all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the action verb and context. Could be slightly improved with structured formatting, but remains concise and clear.

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 the absence of parameters and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's aggregation of multiple data sources (briefing, issues, queue, urgent work) and its expected use case, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to infer.

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 tool has no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies that no input is needed, as the output is automatically scoped to the current user. No additional parameter documentation is required.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: showing what the current user should work on next, including a daily briefing, in-progress issues, prioritized queue, and urgent unassigned work. It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue (single issue) and team_status (team view).

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 description explicitly states when to call the tool: when the user asks what to do, what's next, about priorities, or at the start of a work session. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the positive conditions are clear and helpful.

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