get_operating_loop_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description simply reiterates that it reads a loop run without adding extra behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The description is consistent with the annotations but does not go beyond them.

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, which is efficient. However, it is not structured with any hints about parameters or expected output. It is not overly verbose, but the structure could be improved by separating the purpose from contextual details.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown in the prompt) but the description does not mention what information is returned, nor does it provide any context about the loop run or the 'Spring-scoped SDK authority'. There is no mention of prerequisites or related resources, so the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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?

None of the four parameters (run_ref, loop_ref, company_ref, project_ref) are explained in the description or the schema. The schema has no descriptions, and the description does not mention any parameter details. An agent has no clue what each parameter represents or how they relate to each other.

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 that the tool reads a specific loop run, but it is vague about what 'status' means and the 'Spring-scoped SDK authority' phrase is unclear. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like describe_operating_loop or get_operating_loop_evidence, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would indicate this tool over get_operating_loop_evidence or describe_operating_loop. Without this, an agent has to infer usage context.

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