hai_get_next_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does convey that this is a read operation and that the tool reports 'none' when no NEXT_STEP.md exists. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the project_path is invalid, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The primary action and object are front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is included in a compact parenthetical.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, the absence of annotations and parameter-level schema descriptions leaves some gaps around behavior with missing or invalid paths and around how this tool relates to next-step lifecycle siblings, so it is only minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond echoing the schema's 'project_path'. Saying 'for a project' does not clarify expected path format, whether it should be absolute or relative, or how the path relates to locating NEXT_STEP.md. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('the canonical NEXT_STEP.md'), and a scope ('for a project'), with an explicit fallback behavior ('or report none'). This makes its purpose clear and distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like hai_propose_next_step and hai_accept_next_step.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving the current next step, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling or exclusion condition. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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