athena_list_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists candidates and mentions the need for human approval, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, or behavior when the queue is empty. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the core function and context. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose and the nature of returned items. However, it could optionally mention the default sort order or that the list is from the review queue.

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 100%, with parameters limit and status already well documented (defaults, enums, ranges). The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 lists pending knowledge base update candidates from the review queue. It explains what these candidates are (high-impact discoveries) and that they need human approval, distinguishing it from siblings like athena_review_candidate.

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 usage for listing pending items needing approval but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., athena_review_candidate) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context provide guidelines.

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