review_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states 'review mined patterns' without detailing what happens (e.g., returns a list, marks patterns as reviewed, allows interaction). This is minimal transparency.

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 extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema (unprovided) and the workflow context with sibling tools like 'approve_candidate' and 'reject_candidate', the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'review' entails operationally, leaving the agent without expectations for interaction.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate.

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 'review' and the resource 'mined patterns that are ready for promotion', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'approve_candidate' or 'reject_candidate' which involve actions after review.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_history' or 'mining_status'. The description implies it is for reviewing patterns ready for promotion but does not provide when-not-to-use or context.

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