tracker_next

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it returns exactly one recommendation, includes reasoning and alternatives, and defines an unblock path when nothing is actionable. It also adds a performance/cost signal ('cheaper than tracker_dashboard').

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 sentences deliver purpose, output composition, usage timing, and a comparison to the sibling. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy.

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 read-only recommendation tool with full parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: output structure, when to call it, and behavior when there is nothing actionable. No output schema exists, but the prose specifies the result shape clearly.

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 100% and every parameter is already well described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but that is acceptable because the schema already carries the burden.

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 that tracker_next produces one recommended task with a reason, its next unfinished subtask, alternatives, and an unblock suggestion. This distinguishes it from list/search tools like tracker_dashboard and tracker_search because it is specifically a recommendation, not a general index.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call it when resuming work' and positions it as cheaper than tracker_dashboard, giving the agent a clear condition and alternative. It doesn't exhaustively enumerate when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for routing.

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