review_queue_next

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context: it only marks/takes out without entering, and requires an authorization reminder before proceeding. It does leave what 'marking' entails and how the queue advances somewhat ambiguous, but the main side-effect boundary is clear.

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?

A single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clarifying limitation and a direct next-step instruction. No filler or redundant content.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, and the follow-up call. It does not specify whether the item is removed from the queue or how 'next' is ordered, but that is a minor gap for such a simple fetch tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are necessary.

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 states a specific action ('取出下一个待审路径') and identifies the resource, a pending-review path. It also clarifies that this tool does not automatically enter, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling review_open.

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 maps the workflow: use this tool to take out and mark the next pending path, remind the user about authorization, then call review_open to actually open it. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the alternative review_open.

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