list_loops

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that loops carry policy, taxonomy, strategy order, source files, and promoted rules, and warns that semantic terms like 'side,' 'counterparty,' and 'tolerance' are loop-defined rather than hardcoded. This goes beyond a simple list operation and helps the agent understand why the output matters.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words: it states the resource, summarizes the payload, and gives a clear usage directive. The long second sentence is dense but justified because it enumerates the meaningful contents of each loop.

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 no-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, why the content matters, and when to use it relative to close operations. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed because the tool takes no inputs.

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 as 'the reconciliation loops this controller can close,' which is specific and clearly scoped. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns,' though the tool name supplies the action. It distinguishes the resource from sibling list tools like list_runs and list_source_sets.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Read it before asking for a close.' This tells an agent when the tool should be invoked relative to close-related operations. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a no-parameter list operation.

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