get_candidate_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but 'List' at least signals a non-mutating read and an output schema covers the return shape. It discloses nothing about pagination, result limits, or permission requirements for accessing candidate attachments.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope are stated immediately and nothing extraneous is included.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: returns need not be described, and the single parameter is self-explanatory. It still omits pagination, limits, and any indication of when listing attachments is the right call versus its siblings.

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 coverage is 0% for the single candidate_id parameter, but the name and integer type are largely self-evident. The description only reinforces that the identifier refers to a Bullhorn candidate, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (file attachments) scoped to a parent entity (Bullhorn Candidate), which separates it from sibling reads like get_candidate and from the write-side upload_candidate_resume. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite information, and no reference to alternative tools such as get_candidate (metadata) or upload_candidate_resume (mutation). The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely.

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