query_static_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by stating the result is cursor-bounded and source-scoped, but it does not explain cursor meaning, ordering guarantees, or whether the same run_id is required across pages. This is a modest addition beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core meaning, but it is arguably too terse for a tool whose parameters and domain concepts are otherwise undocumented.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description still omits critical operational details: the role of run_id, how pagination works with cursor, what 'static candidates' refers to, and when this query should be used. For a tool with three parameters and zero schema-level description coverage, this is not complete enough for reliable 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 needed to explain run_id, limit, and cursor, but it only hints at cursor through 'cursor-bounded.' There is no elaboration of how run_id scopes the candidates, what limit controls beyond page size, or how to obtain and use the cursor. This leaves the agent under-equipped to correctly fill the required 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('source-scoped static candidates') with a clear scoping qualifier. It also conveys pagination via 'one cursor-bounded page,' which helps separate it from broader query tools. However, 'static candidates' is never defined, and no sibling tool is explicitly differentiated, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 implies that the tool is used to page through static candidates, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as query_measurements, query_triton_autotune_selections, or import_static_analysis. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or recommended alternatives.

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