describe_operating_loop

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to restate safety. The phrase 'honest quarantined availability' hints at a behavioral guarantee but is opaque; it adds some context while leaving the meaning of 'quarantined' unexplained.

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 one short sentence and starts with the core verb, so it is concise. But the unusual 'honest quarantined availability' wording packs too much unexplained meaning into a single clause, making the sentence cryptic rather than helpfully precise.

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 a single parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the tool is minimally callable if the agent already knows what a versioned loop is. Still, the description fails to explain the domain-specific availability semantics or to point to find_operating_loops for discovering valid refs.

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 only parameter, loop_ref, is a plain string with 0% schema description coverage. The description says 'one versioned loop,' which loosely implies loop_ref identifies a versioned loop, but it does not explain what values are valid, how to obtain a ref, or what format is expected.

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 names a specific action ('Describe') and resource ('one versioned loop'), which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, the phrase 'honest quarantined availability' is unexplained jargon, and the description does not clarify how it differs from sibling tools like get_operating_loop_status or get_operating_loop_evidence.

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 given about when to use this tool rather than the related operating-loop tools. It does not name alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios, so an agent must infer when a 'describe' call is appropriate.

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