list_topic_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns deterministic metadata and short excerpts,' which reveals the return style and stability of results. While it does not explicitly say it is read-only or describe ordering/pagination, the verb 'List' and the return disclosure are sufficient for a low-risk listing tool.

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, no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds useful return information. 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?

For a simple single-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose, the target resource, and the nature of the returned data. Minor gaps like the precise meaning of 'recent' or the ordering of results are not material enough to make the tool hard to call correctly.

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 already fully documents the only parameter (limit) with type, default, minimum, maximum, and a clear description ('Maximum number of candidate articles'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('recent unreviewed research articles'), and adds the intended purpose ('for content-idea evaluation'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_article, save_content_idea, and search_personal_context without ambiguity.

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 a clear use context ('for content-idea evaluation') that implies when an agent should call this tool rather than the saving or searching siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose and resource scoping provide enough guidance for a straightforward read-only list tool.

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