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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the tool exposes provisioning status, autonomy levels, and the runnable_loop_types accepted by run_loop, including the prerequisite that loops must be enabled. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 concise, with two sentences and no fluff. The first sentence is a bit dense with parenthetical examples, but the second sentence earns its place by clarifying the runnable condition. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the main resource.
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?
With no output schema, the description should indicate what the response contains, and it does: provisioned loops, autonomy level, and runnable_loop_types. The optional loop_type filter is already documented in the schema. It could be more explicit about response format, but for a simple read-only status tool it is sufficiently complete.
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% with a clear description for loop_type ('Optional loop type, e.g. daily_brief or linkedin_post'). The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource (automated growth marketing loops) and the information returned (autonomy level, runnable_loop_types), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and the phrase 'what run_loop accepts' can be slightly confusing. It does differentiate from siblings like run_loop and set_loop_autonomy by focusing on status.
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 implies usage by stating 'A runnable type only runs once a loop of that type is provisioned and enabled here,' which suggests checking this tool before using run_loop. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. This is helpful but implicit guidance.
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 follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.