nexo_closure_next

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that source actions are not executed, which is a key behavioral trait for safety. However, it does not address other aspects like read-only nature, idempotency, or potential side effects from the ranking logic.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action. It is front-loaded and each word is meaningful. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail for parameter semantics.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, the description is far from complete. It only covers the high-level behavior, leaving the agent without the information needed to correctly invoke the tool with appropriate parameter values.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no information about what each parameter does. The agent has no semantic guidance for using 'limit', 'include_waiting', 'source', 'kind', 'state', 'max_risk', or 'area'.

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 the verb 'Return', the resource 'ranked closure items', and includes a unique qualifier 'without executing source actions', distinguishing it from other closure tools like nexo_closure_close or nexo_closure_triage.

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 implies that this tool is for previewing next closure items without side effects, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like nexo_closure_status or nexo_closure_snapshot. The qualifier 'without executing source actions' is a hint but not sufficient.

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