candidate_review_run

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that dry_run short-circuits before spawn (no side effects) and force overrides interval. But it doesn't disclose normal spawn behavior or return value, though an output schema exists. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise, using clear formatting with backticks. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the main 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail returns. However, it doesn't explain what a 'candidate-review pass' entails or the normal behavior without flags. Given the complexity and many siblings, more context about the process would help.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains both parameters: force (bypasses interval) and dry_run (returns inventory/pending count, no spawn). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type and default.

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 'Fire one candidate-review pass', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like candidate_review_status by specifying a single pass rather than status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from curator_run or shadow_review_run, which are similar action tools.

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 explains when to use force and dry_run parameters with clear conditions (force for disabled daemon, dry_run for inspection). However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like auto_review_trigger or curator_run.

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