Rank Project Test Candidates

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it operates on an existing artifact and 'preserving project identity,' which explains how the operation is scoped. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a valuable note about analyze_repository. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 the simple single-parameter input, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what input it needs, and a key relationship to analyze_repository. The only gap is that it does not explicitly describe the output format, but the name and purpose imply a ranked result, and the mention of analyze_repository provides context for where this fits.

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 coverage is 100% (the sole parameter is described as 'A project-audits/v1 artifact.'), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that the tool ranks candidates 'from' this artifact, clarifying the parameter's role in the operation beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 tool 'Rank candidates from an existing project-audits/v1 artifact' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the input artifact and noting that analyze_repository already includes this result, which differentiates it from similar ranking tools like rank_test_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?

The description provides a clear when-not-to-use signal: 'analyze_repository already includes this result.' This implicitly tells the agent that if they have called analyze_repository, this tool may be redundant. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the context implies this tool is for when you have an existing artifact and need ranking without re-analysis.

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