software_delivery_loop

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the loop phases and that aspects travel together, but fails to describe key behaviors: mutability, error handling, required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The term 'governed' is vague without specifics.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the main action. Each sentence adds value, though the second sentence is slightly run-on. It efficiently conveys the tool's high-level purpose without fluff.

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 complexity (13 parameters, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, input format, output expectations, or provide examples. For a tool orchestrating a full delivery loop, the description is inadequate for an agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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 description does not explain any of the 13 parameters in the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. Parameters like 'request', 'mode', 'repository', and 'extra_inputs' are undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.

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 states the tool runs a governed software loop from feedback to deploy, positioning it as a high-level orchestrator. It identifies specific resources (MCP, PR, deploy) and distinguishes itself as 'the main bridge for external coding tools,' though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'it_ops_software_engineering_loop.'

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 implies use when integrating external coding tools and mentions routing through an orchestrator, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., individual coding tools like 'coding_write_code' or orchestration tools like 'it_ops_software_engineering_loop'). No exclusions or criteria provided.

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