memify_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing whether this is a read-only listing and what the returned candidates look like. It only defines proposal kinds and does not state side effects, result format, pagination behavior, or failure modes.

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 sentence presents the main category and then each proposal kind with a short parenthetical. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The core invocation requirement—selecting a valid 'kind'—is covered, so an agent can likely call the tool. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should at least indicate what the returned proposals contain or how to act on them, and it does not.

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 description adds critical semantics for the required 'kind' parameter by listing valid values and their meanings, which is especially valuable because the schema has no enum or parameter descriptions. It does not mention 'limit' or 'dataset', but those are optional and reasonably inferable from their names and defaults.

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 identifies the domain ('Maintenance proposals') and enumerates the three proposal kinds, enabling an agent to understand what resource this tool deals with. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', so the action is partly inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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 parenthetical definitions provide implicit selection criteria: cross_connect for co-occurring entities without a relation, consolidate for near-duplicate names, and stale_summaries for buckets needing a summary. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like contradiction_candidates or cross_connect.

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