get_operating_loop_evidence

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

The description says 'Read', which aligns with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. Since annotations already declare it as read-only and idempotent, the description adds little beyond confirming the read nature. No contradictions.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the operation. It is well-structured and easy to parse, with no unnecessary words.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description fails to define domain-specific terms like 'source-bound' and 'economic-closure', and does not clarify the purpose of the four parameters. This leaves an agent with insufficient context to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema defines four parameters (company_ref, project_ref, loop_ref, run_ref) but the description does not explain what each reference points to or how they relate. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no meaning to the parameters.

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 indicates a read operation ('Read') and specifies the resource ('source-bound economic-closure evidence for one exact loop run'). It distinguishes from sibling getters like get_operating_loop_status by focusing on evidence, though 'source-bound' and 'economic-closure' are jargon that may be unclear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_operating_loop_status, get_operating_loop_next_action, or find_operating_loops. It merely states what it does without contextualizing selection.

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