Next task to work

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

Discloses key behaviors: ordering, null return when empty, and conditional eta field. Consistent with readOnlyHint annotation. Adds value beyond annotations by explaining the ordering algorithm and the eta condition (FBMCPF-269). No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences with clear structure: purpose, ordering details, and edge case. Front-loaded with core functionality. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Covers purpose, ordering, and null return, but misses explanation of the 'type' filter and return structure details beyond eta. With no output schema, some additional description of return format would improve completeness. Still sufficient for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but description does not explain the 'type' parameter (enum: all, feature, bug) or its default. The 'project' parameter is implied but not explicitly described. Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Return the next open ticket to work', specifies the resource (ticket with status Todo or In Progress), and explains the ordering logic (In Progress first, then earliest due date, then oldest). Differentiates from siblings like 'next_wave' and 'list_tasks' by focusing on single sequential task retrieval.

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 phrase 'so you can pull work one item at a time' implies sequential single-task usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'next_wave' or 'plan_work'. However, the preference logic provides clear context for decision-making.

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