Lister les candidats mémoire

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: the listing does not inject facts into normal retrieval. But it does not mention read-only guarantees, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the returned data, leaving gaps for a tool with no 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 front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb and resource, states the status scope, and adds the retrieval-injection caveat. There is no filler or redundant 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 tool's low complexity (three optional scalar parameters) and no output schema, the description captures the core purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. However, it omits return format, ordering, default limit behavior, and explicit relationships to sibling tools, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 only restates the status enum values (pending/approved/rejected) that are already present in the input schema. It provides no explanation of the 'limit' parameter or the 'project' filter, so the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('faits... candidats'), enumerates the three statuses, and adds a key scope distinction by noting the listing does not inject facts into normal retrieval. This clearly differentiates it from a general memory list.

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 implies this tool is for reviewing candidate facts by status, particularly because it mentions pending/approved/rejected and the lack of injection into retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as memory_list or memory_candidate_review, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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