review_candidates

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it lists what the result includes (confidence, quality, scoring rationale, user queue) and explains that doubtful_only hides high-confidence items and status='not_found' surfaces missing Soulseek results. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the most important content. The two sentences are dense but do not waste words, though the first sentence is more of a content summary than an action statement.

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 five parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It gives some return-field context and filter behavior, but it omits key parameter explanations and workflow guidance relative to sibling tools like approve_tracks and skip_tracks.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains doubtful_only and partially explains status, but it leaves limit, offset, playlist_id, and the default status='candidates' undocumented, despite there being five parameters.

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 conveys that this tool retrieves tracks needing a decision along with candidate metadata, but it uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb + resource. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as approve_tracks or skip_tracks, leaving the exact action to be inferred.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The description only explains filter behavior for doubtful_only and one status value, which is parameter semantics rather than usage routing.

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