candidate_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'cursor pagination' which adds some behavioral context about handling large result sets, but doesn't disclose other important traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (especially critical without an output schema).

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 extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it states the basic purpose and mentions pagination, it doesn't explain what data is returned, how errors are handled, or other contextual details needed for effective tool use. For a list operation with 2 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (limit and cursor). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all candidates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'candidate_search' or 'candidate_info', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'candidate_search' or 'candidate_info'. It mentions cursor pagination, which hints at usage for large datasets, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over other candidate-related tools.

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