get_reply_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: trigger conditions, idempotency (skip bot-authored latest message), filtering (resolved/archived), and ordering (newest-first). This is comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then explains triggers, exclusions, and ordering in a logical flow. It is efficient but the second sentence could be slightly more concise. Overall good structure.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, trigger conditions, filtering criteria, and ordering. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'projectId', and the description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns pins where Pincushion AI should respond, tagged by trigger reason ('mention' or 'reply-on-bot-pin'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its use case for the slash command and the inclusion of trigger tags.

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 explicitly says 'Used by /pincushion-replies' and details triggers and exclusions (skips resolved/archived, bot-authored). It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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