Stream the next loop section only after recording evidence for the current section. Prevents premature model collapse by requiring real decisions before advancing.
Stream the next loop section. BLOCKED (PHASE_SKIP) unless the current section already has recorded evidence. Prevents 300+ lines collapsing into the model before real decisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loop | No | ||
| runId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a blocking condition and rationale (prevents 300+ lines collapsing), but lacks detail on side effects, required permissions, or return format. The behavioral information is partial.
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 concise with two sentences. It front-loads the action and provides a constraint. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be more structured.
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 no output schema, low schema coverage, and relatively complex behavior, the description is insufficient. It offers a high-level purpose and one constraint, but omits parameter explanations, error conditions, and return values. The agent cannot fully understand tool invocation requirements.
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 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. The agent gets no guidance on what 'runId' or 'loop' mean, how they affect behavior, or valid values. This is a critical gap for a tool with undocumented parameters.
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 streams the next loop section and provides a blocking condition. The verb 'stream' is specific, and the mention of 'BLOCKED (PHASE_SKIP)' clarifies the tool's behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'loop_next', so it loses a point.
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 indicates when the tool is blocked (unless current section has recorded evidence). This gives a usage condition but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.