describe_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the informational payload, implying a read, but never states that the call is side-effect free, what happens when no mode is active, or whether the result can error. The 'served rather than copied' remark is useful context but is about the loop, not the tool's behavior.

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 first sentence is a long run-on list ('its roles with their workspace, sandbox default and prompt, its git policy, and projectRoot') that is hard to parse, and the second sentence stacks an instruction, a rationale, and a note about review settings. Nothing is padding, but the structure resists scanning and buries the call-first instruction mid-paragraph.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no params, the description does the right work by enumerating the returned fields (loop text, roles, sandbox, git policy, projectRoot, review limits). It omits error/empty-mode behavior, which is the remaining gap for a zero-input introspection 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 tool takes zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by never referencing inputs, though it could have said explicitly that it takes none.

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?

States a specific verb (describe) and resource (the active mode) and enumerates the payload — loop text, roles, git policy, projectRoot — which is more than a tautology. It is distinguishable from siblings like git_root and list_roles, though it never defines what a 'mode' or 'loop' is, leaving the core noun under-specified for a reader who doesn't already know the domain.

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?

"Call this first: it is how a launcher learns the loop, which is served rather than copied" gives an explicit ordering instruction and a rationale, which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to call it, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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