enoch_core_paper_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Get' aligns. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what 'candidate' means or any waiting/blocking behavior. No contradiction.

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 concise sentence without extraneous words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters), but it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality but lacks details on return value shape, ordering, or state. The 'mode' parameter is unexplored, and the concept of 'candidate' is vague. Adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'kind' parameter (draft or polish) but completely omits the 'mode' parameter, which is nullable and has no schema descriptions. This leaves ambiguity about its purpose.

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 'Get' and the resource 'paper draft or polish candidate from Enoch core', distinguishing between 'draft' and 'polish' via the 'kind' parameter. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like 'enoch_draft_paper' or 'enoch_papers_list' which deal with creation or listing.

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 it retrieves the next candidate, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as 'enoch_draft_paper' for creating a draft or 'enoch_papers_list' for a full listing. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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