list_legend_catalog_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. 'List' weakly implies a read, but nothing states whether this is read-only, requires a valid graph path, or has side effects; 'advisory' hints at non-authoritative results but is not explained. With an output schema present, return values need not be described, but safety and prerequisite behavior remain undisclosed.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally fine. But brevity here comes at the cost of clarity: the one sentence is dense with unexplained domain terms rather than earning its place through useful 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?

Given two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage context, the description is insufficient for an agent to call this correctly beyond guessing. The output schema helps with return interpretation, but input and behavioral context are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not mention either graph_path or route_regex. The phrase 'source-bound facts' faintly gestures at a source graph but gives no format, expected values, or regex semantics. An agent must guess what route_regex filters.

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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (legend/symbol-sample groups), so the general intent is inferable. However, 'advisory' and 'source-bound facts' are undefined jargon that obscure what these candidates actually are and how they differ from sibling tools like list_label_candidates. It is minimally adequate rather than clearly differentiated.

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 guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling tools it replaces or complements. With many similarly named list_* candidate tools in the sibling set, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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