list_network_repair_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 does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires permissions, how results are paginated, or what the candidate records contain, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 focused sentence with no wasted words and the key action is front-loaded. Its shortfall is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits the parameter's path semantics, usage context, and any behavioral traits, leaving the tool inadequately documented for an agent encountering it among many similarly named candidate-listing 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?

The single required parameter graph_path has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter, its expected path format, or whether it must reference a specific graph artifact. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no compensating detail.

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 gives a verb ('List') and a resource ('graph-bound crossing and collinear candidates'), but 'derived repairs' is undefined jargon, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from sibling candidate-listing tools such as list_endpoint_join_candidates or list_legend_catalog_candidates.

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 use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. The description merely states what is listed, leaving the agent to infer the context in which this tool is appropriate.

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