unw_candidates

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose valuable behavior — empty results always carry a reason (never offered / all closed / already completed) and compact drops repeated section detail. However it never states the return structure beyond that, nor whether the call is purely read-only or what refresh implies, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, then compact parenthetical notes for behavioral edge cases and parameter hints. No filler sentences; every clause conveys usable information.

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 6-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the meaning of most parameters, empty-result semantics and a size/perf caution. The unexplained refresh and open_only parameters are the main remaining hole.

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?

With 0% schema coverage across 6 params, the description meaningfully explains four of them: term, requirement (matches id, title, parent group or target; omit for all), limit (0=all) and compact (omits repeated section detail). refresh and open_only are left entirely undefined, which keeps it short of full compensation.

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+resource: 'Resolve unmet requirements to sections offered in ``term``', plus a parenthetical noting it wraps the catalog resolver. An agent can tell this maps requirements to candidate sections, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like unw_remaining or unw_roadmap.

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?

Gives actionable usage conditions: omit ``requirement`` to cover every unmet requirement, and prefer ``compact``/``limit`` for broad queries because a single requirement can be large. It does not name alternative tools or when not to use this one, but the in-tool selection guidance is clear.

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