Get Next Tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose two key behaviors: filtering out blocked tasks and returning only highest-priority tasks. But it does not explain how priority is determined, what happens when project is omitted, or what the result shape looks like.

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 one concise sentence plus a short guiding question, with the key result front-loaded. 'Smart query' is mild filler, but it does not detract meaningfully from clarity or length.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description is mostly adequate: it states what is returned and at a high level how results are filtered. But with no output schema, it does not say what task fields are returned, and the optional project behavior is ambiguous despite 0 required parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the project-scoping concept and the notion of priority, but provides no additional semantics beyond the schema for limit or project.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('tasks'), and a precise scope ('highest priority non-blocked tasks for a project'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_tasks, get_task, and get_blockers even without explicit sibling names.

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 'what should be worked on next?' gives a strong contextual cue for prioritization/planning use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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