turingmind_get_ready_nodes

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

The description discloses it is a read operation (getting nodes) and that it depends on upstream verification. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, but it does not mention any additional behaviors like side effects, performance, or pagination. The description is adequate for a simple getter.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks explanation of the 'repo' parameter and does not describe the return value. Since there is no output schema, the agent has no information about what the tool returns. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 only parameter 'repo' is not described in the schema (0% coverage) or in the description. The tool description adds no meaning about what 'repo' represents, leaving the agent unclear on how to specify the repository.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'SpecNodes whose upstream dependencies are fully verified', specifying the ready_queue context. It distinguishes from sibling getters like turingmind_get_decision_queue by focusing on dependency verification, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 mentions 'The execution loop calls this to determine what the Builder can work on next', which implies usage context. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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