candidate_list

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

The description declares the tool as 'Read-only', which indicates no side effects, but with no annotations provided, it could add more details like auth requirements or rate limits. The disclosure is minimal but sufficient for a simple list operation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context and boundaries. Highly 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?

The description is complete for a listing tool: it explains the purpose, read-only nature, and relationship to sibling tools. With no output schema, it could mention pagination or default behavior, but the schema already covers limit. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all three parameters (limit, space, status). The description adds context by mentioning 'filtered by review status' and linking to candidate_submit, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 lists memories in the human-review queue filtered by review status. It differentiates from siblings by specifically mentioning the review queue and referencing candidate_submit, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other listing tools like memory_list.

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 explicitly states when to use (to see proposed candidates via candidate_submit) and what not to do (approving/rejecting is a human action in CLI/dashboard), providing clear guidance and context for the agent.

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