loop_library

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that only metadata is returned ('no full bodies'), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm that no side effects occur, nor does it mention any permissions or rate limits. The disclosure is partially adequate but could be more explicit.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. Every word serves a function—defining scope, content, and limitations. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the what and what-not. However, given the large sibling set, the lack of usage guidance leaves it slightly incomplete. The description would benefit from a brief recommendation on when to use this tool over, say, skill_fetch.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter 'runId', and the schema already describes it as 'optional; only used to journal'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., when to supply runId). With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List', the resources 'every loop and skill', and the scope 'available to this local MCP'. It specifies what is included (mandated, custom loops, skills with metadata) and what is excluded ('no full bodies'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like loop_register or loop_start.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. With 27 sibling tools, including many that deal with loops and skills (e.g., loop_register, loop_next, skill_fetch), the description does not provide any comparison or context for selection. The agent receives no information about prerequisites or when this tool is appropriate.

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