ralph.next_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait ('ignores blocked tasks') and implies a read-only 'Return' operation. However, it does not state what happens when no unchecked active task exists, whether the file is modified, or how ordering is determined.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the blocking filter is neatly appended in parentheses.

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 zero-argument tool, the description provides the essential invocation context: source file, selection criteria, and filtering behavior. It would be slightly better with a note on empty-result behavior or return format, but an agent can call this tool correctly with the given information.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Return'), a specific source ('.ralph/fix_plan.md'), and clear selection criteria ('next unchecked active task', 'ignores blocked tasks'). This distinguishes it from sibling mutation/status tools like set_task_status or block_task.

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 the obvious use case—when the agent needs the next actionable task—but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool. With several sibling tools like read_file and read_state that could serve adjacent purposes, usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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