mergeloop_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently outlines the operational pipeline: running CLIs, capturing outputs, identifying disagreements, and returning a bundle. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as spawning external processes, resource consumption, failure modes, or prerequisite setup.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence captures all essential behavior with no filler. Every phrase contributes a new piece of meaning: execution, mode options, output handling, and return value.

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 the moderate complexity of 4 parameters with 2 enums and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outcome. It mentions the synthesis-ready bundle, which serves as the return-value context, and the schema covers parameter choices. Minor gaps remain around default worker behavior and execution times, but the core invocation is clear.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to add parameter-level meaning. It reinforces the mode semantics ('single or council') and the output purpose ('synthesis-ready bundle'), but does not add information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') with a clear resource ('local model CLIs'), and enumerates distinct behaviors: single/council mode, capturing outputs, identifying disagreements, and returning a synthesis-ready bundle. This precisely defines the tool's scope despite the absence of sibling tools to differentiate from.

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 conveys clear usage context by defining the two modes ('single or council') and the intended purpose ('capture outputs, identify disagreements'). There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tools listed, but since no siblings exist, the guidance is clear for the available context.

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