pickup_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains it 'Ranks by oldest last_touched_at among active+idle threads with no current claim' and 'Adds a one-line summary', clearly indicating a read-only operation. It does not explicitly declare no side effects, but the language strongly implies non-destructive behavior.

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 with two short paragraphs. Every sentence adds value: purpose, ranking criteria, and output feature. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

While the description covers purpose and ranking, it does not explain how the parameters (min_idle_days, max_n) affect results or specify the format of the one-line summary. Given that an output schema exists, the absence of parameter details makes it incomplete for full understanding.

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 schema has two parameters (min_idle_days, max_n) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not mention either parameter, failing to add meaning beyond the schema's defaults and titles. For a low-coverage schema, description should compensate, but it does not.

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 verb 'Surface' clearly indicates the action, and the resource is precisely defined as 'unresolved threads that are stale and unclaimed'. This distinguishes it from siblings like claim_pickup or accept_candidate, which operate on individual candidates.

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 states it is for 'self-initiated pickup when context is free', providing clear context. It also explains the output includes a one-line summary to help decide which to claim, implying it precedes claim_pickup. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or mention when not to use it.

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