engineering_design_loop

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose side effects, permissions required, destruction potential, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond routing. With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden but falls short.

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 short (three sentences) with no wasted words. However, it is too brief to convey necessary information. A more structured format with usage examples or parameter constraints would improve clarity without adding length.

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 tool's apparent complexity (invoking a domain agent action), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (despite an output schema existing), error handling, or the action's behavior. The agent lacks context to use this tool correctly.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds basic meaning: message is 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While this is helpful, it lacks examples, constraints, or expected keys, leaving parameters underspecified.

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 states 'Run the engineering domain agent action engineering_design_loop', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what the design loop actually does or differentiate it from sibling tools like engineering_chat or engineering_create_spec.

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 mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not state prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or how it compares to other engineering tools.

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