get_assigned_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns summaries and status, but omits critical details: pagination behavior (the 'limit' parameter suggests pagination but is not explained), error handling (e.g., if job_slug is invalid), and whether the operation is safe/read-only. The description lacks sufficient context for a reliable agent invocation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered by that. However, the input 'limit' parameter is not explained, and pagination behavior is not described. Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations), the description falls short of fully enabling correct invocation.

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 'job_slug' indirectly via the tool's purpose, and explicitly explains 'status_id' as a filter for hiring stage. However, 'limit' is not mentioned at all, and no details on formats, defaults, or constraints are provided. Partial coverage yields a score of 3.

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 'candidates assigned to a specific job and their hiring stage'. It explicitly mentions returning 'candidate summaries with their current hiring status', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_candidates' (broader) and 'assign_candidate' (write operation).

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 provides guidance on using 'status_id' to filter by hiring stage, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to use 'search_candidates' vs this tool) or specify when not to use it.

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