suggest_next_up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a soft, non-destructive ranking tool that prefers quiet/stale open work and never starts or dismisses work. This gives the agent essential behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral constraints and a usage cue. Minor rhetorical filler like 'Wave 7 continuity intelligence' does not significantly hurt clarity.

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 suggestion tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description covers purpose, usage context, and safety behavior well. It omits project_slug semantics and fallback behavior when no work matches, but these are not critical for safe invocation.

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 description adds meaning for energy ('optional energy match') and focus_project_slug ('honour focus mode / drift'), but project_slug is never mentioned and the energy enum values are not explained. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is partial compensation with a notable gap.

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 identifies a specific verb ('pick'), a resource ('cross-project Next-up'), and a mode ('soft ranking only'). It also differentiates itself from action-taking siblings by explicitly stating it never starts or dismisses work.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool when focus is off and the human asks 'what now?', and explains how focus_project_slug honors focus mode/drift. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended context is clear.

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