list_learning_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'deterministic' as a behavioral trait, which is useful context, and 'for maintainer review' clarifies the audience. However, it does not elaborate on filter behavior or what constitutes a candidate.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is concise and effective for a simple list operation.

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 output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description is adequate for a simple list operation. However, it lacks context about the learning workflow, what 'deterministic lesson candidates' are, and how it fits with sibling tools, leaving moderate 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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three optional parameters (skill, learning_key, database_name). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent to infer how they filter results.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a resource 'deterministic lesson candidates' and a purpose 'for maintainer review', clearly identifying its function. It distinguishes from siblings like propose_lesson or recall_lessons by focusing on listing candidates for review rather than creating or recalling lessons.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'for maintainer review' implies a review step, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over propose_lesson or recall_lessons, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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