The automated growth marketing loops provisioned for this product (AI visibility, competitors, channel distribution) with their autonomy level, plus runnable_loop_types, what run_loop accepts. A runnable type only runs once a loop of that type is provisioned and enabled here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loop_type | No | Optional loop type, e.g. daily_brief or linkedin_post. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it enumerates the categories (AI visibility, competitors, channel distribution) and clarifies the provisioning/enabling prerequisite for runnable types—useful nuance beyond the annotations.
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 short (two sentences) but the first sentence is a dense, grammatically fragmented noun phrase that is somewhat hard to parse. It packs useful information, but the structure could be clearer.
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 getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the key return contents (loops, autonomy level, runnable types) and the important caveat about provisioning. It does not explain the effect of the loop_type filter, but the schema already documents that parameter.
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 covers the single optional loop_type parameter 100%, including an example. The tool description does not add further semantics about how the parameter filters results, so it stays at the baseline for full schema 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 names the specific resource (automated growth marketing loops) and the aspects returned (autonomy level, runnable_loop_types). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like run_loop by noting what run_loop accepts, though it lacks a direct verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.
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 second sentence implies when to use this tool: 'A runnable type only runs once a loop of that type is provisioned and enabled here.' This suggests checking this status before running a loop, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions are thorough. A few pairs (e.g., ship_move vs set_output_status, dismiss_gap vs skip_move) overlap on the dismissal concept but operate on different surfaces, so an agent can usually tell them apart with careful reading.
All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_move, create_checkout, untrack_prompt). Retrieval tools consistently use get_ for single items and list_ for collections, and action verbs are precise, so the naming is fully predictable.
42 tools is heavy by any standard, exceeding the 25+ threshold in the calibration. While each tool may earn its place given the breadth of the domain, the sheer number will overwhelm an agent and complicate tool selection.
The tool set covers the main lifecycles well: moves (list/get/ship/skip/archive/undo/update), outputs (list/get/ship/redraft), connections (list/start/poll/disconnect), prompts (track/untrack/list), and scans (refresh/get/set intensity). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct edit for KB pages, but record_insight partially fills that.