candidate_review_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clarifies key behaviors: `force` overrides the daemon interval, `dry_run` short-circuits before spawn and avoids cursor advance. It does not mention potential side effects on state or authorization requirements, but the revealed traits are sufficient for safe invocation.

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: a single headline sentence followed by bullet-point explanations for each parameter. Every sentence adds value, no repetition or fluff. The structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 (2 boolean params, no required args) and that an output schema exists, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the normal behavior, the edge case (daemon disabled), and the dry-run short-circuit. No gaps remain.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does so fully: `force=True` runs despite disabled daemon, `dry_run=True` short-circuits and returns inventory/pending count. Both boolean parameters are clearly contextualized beyond the schema.

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 action as 'Fire one candidate-review pass.' It uses a specific verb ('Fire') and resource ('candidate-review pass'), making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tools include candidate_review_status and accept_candidate, so this tool's role as the execution trigger is distinct.

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 provides explicit guidance for when to use the `force` flag (when daemon is disabled via interval=0) and `dry_run` (to check inventory without spawning). However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like `candidate_review_status` or `pickup_candidates`, missing an opportunity to state when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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