list_cherry_pick_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only enumeration and mentions a Pro tier requirement, but does not describe output shape, pagination, ordering, or whether the result excludes already-picked changes. The Pro/upsell text is relevant but poorly integrated.

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 useful first sentence is followed by three lines of unrelated product marketing and an upgrade URL. The critical purpose is front-loaded, but a substantial portion of the description does not help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves key gaps: return values, ordering, pagination, and differentiation from sibling cherry-pick candidate tools. The Pro-tier note is useful but does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 for two undocumented required parameters. It does clarify that the enumeration is from source_version_id relative to ancestor_version_id, which adds some directional meaning, but it does not explain ID formats, ancestry requirements, or validation behavior.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ("Enumerate") and resource ("semantic modifications cherry-pickable") and references both required IDs. However, "semantic modifications" is vague and does not distinguish this generic tool from close siblings like list_feature_cherry_pick_candidates or list_decoration_cherry_pick_candidates. The trailing marketing copy adds noise without clarifying scope.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_feature_cherry_pick_candidates, list_decoration_cherry_pick_candidates, or the cherry_pick_* mutation tools. The only implied guidance is that it enumerates candidates, which is already evident from the name.

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