get_next_actions

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose side effects, read-only guarantees, error behavior, or visibility semantics. 'Visible to audience' hints at filtering but does not explain what happens for each audience value.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence. No filler. It could be clearer, but it is efficiently structured and does not bury the key parameter.

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 tool with no annotations and an opaque 'joint/internal' qualifier, the description leaves too much unexplained: what makes an action 'joint' or 'internal', whether the output is a list or a single recommendation, and how `audience` affects results.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description at least ties `audience` to the visibility of results, which adds some meaning beyond the raw enum. However, it does not clarify the 'internal' vs 'customer' values or the meaning of 'joint'.

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 names the resource ('joint/internal next actions') and ties it to the `audience` parameter, and the resource name distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_risks and get_expansion_pipeline. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action, and the term 'joint/internal' is ambiguous, so an agent cannot be certain what is being returned.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, how to choose between 'internal' and 'customer', or what qualifies as a 'next action'. The only usage hint is 'visible to audience', which is too weak to route an agent reliably.

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