pickup_candidates

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not contradicted. The description adds value by explaining the ranking by oldest last_touched_at and that a one-line summary is added, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds key details about ranking and summary. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a read-only retrieval with an output schema, so return values are covered externally. The description explains the selection criteria (stale, unclaimed, ranked by oldest) and the summary provided. It lacks explicit parameter guidance but otherwise feels complete for the tool's purpose.

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 two parameters (max_n, min_idle_days) with default values but no descriptions. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not mention these parameters or explain how to use them. The defaults imply sensible behavior, but the lack of parameter explanation reduces the score.

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 surfaces unresolved threads that are stale and unclaimed, specifying it is for self-initiated pickup when context is free. This distinguishes it from siblings like review_candidates, which likely reviews all candidates without the pickup focus.

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 clear context: use when context is free and for self-initiated pickup. It implies this is not for reviewing all candidates but for selecting candidates to claim. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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