loop_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('List'), defines the exact fields returned, and explicitly states that full loop bodies are not returned. This is transparent and sets accurate expectations for the agent.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the purpose, scope, fields, and limitations. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded: 'List every loop available to this local MCP'. The parenthetical list of fields is compact yet comprehensive.

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 is fully complete. It covers functionality, content, and exclusions. The mention of 'hash-locked loops' and 'custom loops' provides necessary context about what 'every loop' means. No additional detail is needed for effective use.

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 schema covers the single optional parameter runId with a description ('only used to journal'), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning to this parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Given 100% schema coverage, no extra value is added.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'every loop available to this local MCP'. It specifies what is included (mandated hash-locked loops and custom loops) and explicitly states what is not ('No full bodies'), leaving no ambiguity. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like loop_register (which creates) and loop_start (which executes).

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 provides context by mentioning custom loops registered with loop_register, implying its use for discovery. It explicitly states the output excludes full bodies, setting expectations. However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use instructions or comparisons to other sibling tools like loop_next or loop_start, which would further enhance guidance.

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