candidate_review_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Although the verb 'show' hints at a read operation, this is not explicitly stated, leaving uncertainty about safety and side effects.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action 'Show', and contains no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a status tool, listing the three main data groups. An output schema exists, so return values are assumed to be structured. However, it could mention the read-only nature or lack of side effects.

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 zero parameters, and the description adds meaning by specifying the exact information returned: configuration, last 5 passes, and pending queue size. This adds value beyond the schema, which provides no parameter details. With a schema coverage of 100% (no params), the description enriches the tool's semantics.

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's purpose: showing candidate-reviewer configuration, last 5 passes, and current pending queue size. It uses specific verbs ('show') and distinct resources, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'candidate_review_run' (which runs reviews) and other status 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 implies the tool is used to view current state (configuration, passes, queue size), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'curator_review_status' or provide any exclusions. Usage context is present but not emphasized.

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