memory_candidate_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one genuinely non-obvious trait (candidate isolation from memory_search), but says nothing about default status filtering, result ordering, pagination limits, or whether this is a read-only operation — all of which an agent needs for a 5-parameter list tool.

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 tight sentence with the scoping fact front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than model conciseness.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters mean the description should be doing far more work. It leaves result shape, filtering semantics, and read-only status entirely unstated, which is inadequate 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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters (limit, scope, status, source_kind, memory_level), including three enums with no explanation of their values. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the isolated candidate review queue), so the agent knows this enumerates pending review items. It also implicitly contrasts with memory_search, though it never names the other candidate tools (get/approve/reject) it sits beside.

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 clause 'candidates never appear in memory_search' gives one useful routing signal: come here rather than search to find candidates. However it offers no guidance on when to use this versus memory_candidate_get or memory_recent, and no mention of the status/scope filters that clearly shape the intended query.

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