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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool does not advance the loop, effectively communicating a read-only side-effect profile. It does not discuss invalid loop_id behavior or failure modes, but for a status reader this is reasonably transparent.

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 filler. The key action and purpose are front-loaded, and the important non-mutating caveat is placed immediately after. Every word 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the state fields returned and explicitly notes the lack of side effects. It could be more complete by stating the return format or behavior for missing loops, but given the low complexity, this is a solid definition.

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 provides zero description coverage for loop_id, so the description must compensate. The name 'loop_id' plus the description's context ('loop state') makes the parameter's purpose inferable, but the description does not explain where the ID comes from, its format, or what happens on an unknown ID.

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 action ('Read loop state') and specifies the resource and contents ('turns, gates, tokens, health'). It also distinguishes itself from mutating loop tools by noting it 'Does not advance the loop.'

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 makes it clear this is a read-only inspection tool and that it does not advance the loop, which implicitly separates it from hexum_loop_tick, hexum_loop_start, and hexum_loop_abort. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the exclusion is clear.

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