candidate_review_status

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true) by detailing the data returned. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits. It is not contradictory.

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?

Single sentence listing all three outputs concisely. No extraneous words; front-loaded and efficient.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main purpose. It does not explain what the 'configuration' entails or how to interpret queue size, but overall it is adequate for a read-only status tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is complete. Baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add per-parameter detail.

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?

Description clearly states three specific pieces of information shown (configuration, last 5 passes, pending queue size). It distinguishes from similar tools like candidate_review_run, but does not explicitly differentiate from other review 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as candidate_review_run or curator_review_status. The description only lists what it shows, without context for decision-making.

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