list_endpoint_join_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'List' and says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or what happens if the node IDs are invalid.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is compact, though its terseness comes at the cost of clarity for unfamiliar terms.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not compensate for the absence of annotations and the 0% parameter documentation. For a tool requiring three specific path/node identifiers, an agent needs more context to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three required parameters (graph_path, left_feature_node_id, right_feature_node_id). Even the left/right pairing is only vaguely implied by 'endpoint pair IDs', leaving the agent without guidance on what each parameter means.

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?

It uses a specific verb (List) and names the resource (source-derived endpoint pair IDs) plus a condition (selectable by a decision pack). This is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_network_repair_candidates or list_label_candidates, though the jargon 'source-derived' and 'decision pack' could be clearer.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'selectable by a decision pack' hints at context but does not tell an agent when this list should be called.

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