itsm_run_loop

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists steps and return values but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, idempotent, or requires special permissions. The dry_run parameter is mentioned in schema but not elaborated in the description.

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 efficiently convey the purpose and return value. No redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the key verb and 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?

The description mentions return values (sealed ticket IDs and receipt hashes) but does not explain terms like 'sealed' or 'receipt hash'. No output schema exists, so more detail would be helpful. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for complex automation.

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% (one boolean parameter, dry_run, with clear description). The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 triggers the full 6-step ITSM ProofLink loop, specifying the exact sequence (DETECT through CLOSE+SEAL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like itsm_create_ticket, which likely focus on a single step.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this full-loop tool versus individual step tools (e.g., itsm_create_ticket, itsm_close_ticket). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools.

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