loop_register

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that loops are hashed, phase-gated, and streamed; skills are section-addressable with provenance-enforced frontmatter; overwriting is restricted for certain loops; and data does not leave the machine. This adds significant context beyond the schema, though details on streaming behavior could be richer.

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 four sentences, succinct and well-structured. It front-loads the primary action, then details specifics about loops and skills, and ends with constraints. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Despite 17 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and two registration types. It explains hashing, phase-gating, provenance, and data privacy. It lacks details on expected return values or outcomes (e.g., how to invoke the registered loop/skill), but is fairly complete for the complexity.

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 94%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds value by explaining that 'content' holds full text, and clarifies the role distinction. However, it does not elaborate on many parameters like stack, tags, or anti_patterns beyond what's in the schema, so added meaning is moderate.

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 adds/registers loops or skills, with specific verb 'Add' / 'register' and resource types. It distinguishes between loops and skills and mentions constraints like 'Cannot overwrite hash-locked Strip Miner / Loop-de-loop'. This makes the purpose distinct from siblings like loop_library or skill_fetch.

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 explains the difference between loops and skills via the 'role' parameter, but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., loop_library to list, or artifact_record for other data). Usage context is implied but lacks direct when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings.

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