aya_tarefas_proxima

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the selection criteria: incomplete status, completed dependencies, and 'first' ordering. It does not describe no-result behavior, the return format, or explicitly confirm this is a read-only suggestion, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. The core behavior is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks edge-case guidance such as what happens when no eligible task exists or how 'first' is ordered. With no output schema or annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the empty input schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 ('sugere') and a specific resource/selection rule: the first incomplete task whose dependencies are complete. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like aya_tarefas_listar and aya_tarefas_validar_dependencias.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this when it needs to pick the next actionable task. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling task tools or when not to use it.

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