invariance_dna_list_edge_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: output shape ({data: DnaEdgeCandidate[], next_cursor}), the 'awaiting review' semantic, and the available status filter values. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, the key filters are summarized, and the output shape is compressed into a single line. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters, the description is nearly complete: it conveys purpose, optional filters, and return shape, and pagination is signaled via next_cursor. The main gaps are the undocumented project_id filter and lack of detail on relation_kind values, but these are optional filtering concerns rather than blockers to invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is low (33%), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that status, object_id, and relation_kind are filters and enumerates the status values, which adds value. However, project_id is left undocumented in both the schema and description, and relation_kind's meaning is not expanded, so the compensation is partial.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Company DNA edge candidates'), and the defining context ('discovered relationships between objects awaiting review'). It also lists the available filters, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like invariance_dna_list_edges and invariance_dna_list_objects.

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 'awaiting review' framing clearly situates this tool in the candidate-review workflow, alongside siblings like invariance_dna_accept_edge_candidate and invariance_dna_reject_edge_candidate. It does not explicitly say when to prefer invariance_dna_list_edges over this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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