List candidate intelligence

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that results should be treated as unverified candidate items rather than adopted knowledge, and 'List' implies a read operation. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, define 'recent', or describe ordering and pagination, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then supplies filter guidance. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase 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?

The output schema covers the return shape, so the description does not need to explain return values. The definition communicates the tool's purpose, the unverified nature of candidate intelligence, and the available filtering dimensions. Minor gaps remain around the definition of 'recent' and lack of explicit sibling-tool routing, but the description is adequate for a straightforward list operation.

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 does so for the meaningful filters: 'lifecycle status' maps to status, 'source type' maps to source_type, and 'related project-issue substring' clarifies that the string is matched as a substring. Limit is not mentioned, but the schema's default and range make it self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List recent candidate intelligence'. It also distinguishes itself from verified or adopted project knowledge, which separates it clearly from sibling tools like list_project_knowledge and list_research_activities.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for unverified candidate intelligence, not adopted project knowledge. It also advises filtering by lifecycle status, source type, or related project-issue substring when useful. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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