diana_community_preview

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

The annotations already establish a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope and privacy context—candidates are redacted, every candidate is covered, and risk reports are included—but offers little additional operational behavior.

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 single sentence is compact, front-loads the read action, and uses its final clause to state the decision context. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of structured fields.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the redaction scope, risk reports, and review purpose provide a minimally adequate overview. However, the undocumented required batch_id and missing workflow linkage leave a material invocation gap.

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 sole required input is batch_id, and its schema has no description. The description never mentions a batch, the identifier's meaning, or where to obtain a valid value, so it does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 phrase 'Read every redacted candidate and its risk report' provides a specific verb and resources, while 'before deciding whether it may be public' establishes the review purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish this preview from siblings such as diana_community_prepare or diana_community_contribute.

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 gives a clear when-to-use context: review the candidates and reports before deciding on public exposure. It provides no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling routing, such as which tool supplies the batch or handles a subsequent contribution.

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