initialize_loop_run

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

Discloses that user messages are stored locally with sha256 hash, that after initialization it does not ask again or mark the campaign complete, and that the operator remains the stop condition. Also covers the conditional behavior based on underspecification. No contradictions since no annotations are provided.

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 dense but well front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering behavior, usage, and constraints. Slightly lengthy but justified by the tool's complexity.

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 role as a gate, the description covers the initialization phase thoroughly, including what it returns when underspecified and how to proceed. Lacks detail on return value after answers and error handling, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'answers' correspond to the ask-once questions), but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's descriptions.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as an 'Ask-once gate' that confirms the task before loops run. It describes its role of prompting for underspecified tasks and then accepting answers to begin. Distinct from sibling tools like 'loop_start' and 'continue_run', which handle later stages.

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?

Explains the two-phase usage: first call with 'task' to receive questions, then call with 'answers' to begin. Also clarifies what the tool never asks (model, promotion mode, etc.), indicating the supervisor's role. Lacks explicit statement of when not to use or comparison to alternatives.

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