list_discovery_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden; 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the review-status filter is disclosed. However it does not state any default behavior when the parameter is omitted, ordering, or return format, so transparency is only partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it delivers the operation, resource, and filter in five words.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool, the description covers the core operation, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unspecified what the returned candidate objects look like and what happens when review_status is absent. It is minimally adequate, not complete.

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?

The description tells the agent that candidates are listed 'by review status', directly indicating the role of the single parameter, but it does not explain the enum values or the effect of omitting the parameter. The schema's enum provides the values, so a baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('candidates') and adds the review-status filter, so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish discovery candidates from sibling list_watchlist or get_due_reviews, but the resource name and status enum provide enough specificity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_due_reviews or list_watchlist, nor any exclusions or conditions. The filtering by review_status is implied but not tied to a concrete use case.

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