dashclaw_posture_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly declares the tool as read-only and that fix actions are operator-driven. It does not detail permissions or empty-queue behavior, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 efficient sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and return fields; the second clarifies the read-only nature and operator responsibility.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and usage boundaries. Nothing essential is missing.

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 (baseline 4). The description adds value by listing the returned fields (severity, points recoverable, evidence, prefilled fix), which goes beyond the input schema.

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 it returns the single highest-priority open governance gap with specific fields (severity, points recoverable, evidence, prefilled fix). The explicit use case 'what is the one governance gap I should close next?' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like dashclaw_posture.

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 explicit guidance: use for identifying the top gap to close, and clarifies that preparation/activation is operator-driven, not agent-driven. It could be improved by contrasting with related tools (e.g., dashclaw_posture for listing all gaps).

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