guard_loop_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description reads like a passive analysis call while annotations say it is not read-only; it never discloses what state it touches, per-session scope of that state, or rate/cost limits. That is the exact gap the description should close, and it does not.

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?

It is a single short fragment with zero filler, which is efficient. But the terseness is achieved by dropping the verb and the trigger condition, so the brevity costs clarity rather than earning its place.

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 parameters and an existing output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, which lowers the burden. Still, for a non-read-only tool sitting among eleven similarly named guard_* siblings, the description leaves the core question — when to call it instead of the others and what it mutates — unanswered.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit session scoping. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies, with a slight mark down because 'this session' is the only semantic hint about what the empty argument list means.

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 names a specific resource ('failing-command streaks for this session') plus a secondary output ('change-strategy advice'), so the agent can infer it reports on repeated failures. But it is a noun phrase without a verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the eleven sibling guard_* tools (guard_status, guard_verify, guard_loop_check being easily confused).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no trigger condition (e.g. 'call after two consecutive failures'), no exclusion, and no pointer to an alternative such as guard_status or guard_verify. The agent must guess when this tool is appropriate versus its very similar siblings.

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