find_operating_loops

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral boundary — that discovery grants no authority, meaning finding a loop does not confer permission to execute it. Beyond that caveat, nothing is disclosed about result ordering, pagination, or authorization requirements.

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?

Nine words in a single sentence, with the core purpose front-loaded before the caveat. There is no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every word contributes either scope ('canonical'), action ('Find'), or behavioral context ('grants no authority').

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 output schema covers return shape and annotations cover safety, so the description does not need those. But for a discovery tool sitting among dozens of operating-loop and golden-loop siblings, the description omits parameter semantics, the meaning of 'canonical', and any hint about how find, describe, and get relate. The single authority caveat is valuable but the overall picture has clear gaps.

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 0% — the schema provides only names, defaults, and bounds with no descriptions. The description does not compensate: it never explains what 'query' matches against or what 'limit' caps. An agent can guess that limit is a result-count cap from its min/max/default, but the description adds zero parameter meaning.

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 ('Find') tied to a defined resource ('canonical Golden Operating Loops'), which sets it apart from the broader operating-loop sibling family (describe_operating_loop, start_operating_loop, get_operating_loop_status). The 'canonical' qualifier further narrows scope. However, it never explicitly names a sibling it is not, and the domain concept 'Golden Operating Loop' is left undefined, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 clause 'discovery grants no authority' implies the tool is for reconnaissance only and that acting on results would require other tools, which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions — an agent must infer the discovery-only role from a single phrase.

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