loop_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it states 'View' indicating a read-only operation, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, performance considerations, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks depth.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly concise and to the point.

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?

Given that the tool has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description mentions the output fields (phase, cycle, completed task count) which is helpful. However, it lacks context about when the tool is applicable (e.g., after loop_start), error conditions, or relationship to other loop tools. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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% as the single parameter 'team_id' is fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it just includes the parameter implicitly. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View current company loop status — phase, cycle, completed task count.' It specifies the action (view), resource (company loop status), and outputs (phase, cycle, completed task count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like loop_advance, loop_pause, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking loop status, but does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tools like loop_status, loop_review, and loop_advance suggest different use cases, but no differentiation is given.

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