What to do right now — a ranked to-do list from local state (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds valuable context: it works offline ('No network'), aggregates multiple data sources, and returns a ranked list. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the tool's scope and behavior without contradicting them.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the key fact ('No network') and then enumerates the inputs and output. Every clause adds value, and it ends with a clear usage directive. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (aggregating many data sources) and the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what it considers and what it returns. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of strings or objects) but the phrase 'prioritised list of concrete next calls' is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. The single optional parameter is well-defined in the schema.

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 schema has only one optional parameter (limit) with a clear range (1-20), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description doesn't mention the limit parameter, but since it's optional and self-explanatory, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameter details, which is acceptable given the minimal parameter surface.

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 the tool's purpose: it returns a prioritized list of concrete next calls based on local state. It lists specific inputs (unanswered inbound, due scheduled posts, etc.) and explicitly notes it works without network. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'inbox' or 'schedule' by framing it as an aggregator/prioritizer rather than a single-resource tool.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use it: 'Call it whenever you finish a step.' It implies it's a general-purpose next-action recommender, which differentiates it from more specific tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, though the context makes it clear it's the go-to for deciding what to do next.

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