review_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals ordering ('Newest first') and the status filter, but omits critical behavior: what the tool returns (list? count?), whether pagination is supported, and the meaning of the 'k' parameter. The response format is unknown despite an output schema being present.

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 short (one line), which could be considered concise. However, it lacks essential information that a user would need, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise. The structure is front-loaded but at the expense of completeness.

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 has two parameters with no schema descriptions, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of 'k', the format of results, or how the tool relates to candidate_review_status or candidate_review_run. A more complete description would cover these gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does for the 'status' parameter by listing valid values, but provides no explanation for the 'k' parameter (likely a limit). The mathematical notation for status is helpful but incomplete; it does not describe the default or the effect of each value.

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 that the tool lists candidates filtered by status (pending, accepted, rejected, all) and ordered newest first. The verb 'review' in the name combined with the filter implies listing, which distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools like accept_candidate and reject_candidate. However, it does not explicitly say 'list' or 'get 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like candidate_review_status or other listing tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, relationship to other tools, or 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.