loop_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('available to this local MCP'), the fields returned (id, title, etc.), and a key behavioral trait ('No full bodies'). This provides useful context beyond a simple 'list', though it does not cover authorization or side effects.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and details the output fields, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is complete: it defines the return fields, clarifies the exclusion of bodies, and distinguishes mandated vs custom loops, leaving no major gaps for an agent to infer.

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% with one optional parameter (runId) described as 'optional; only used to journal'. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every loop available to this local MCP'), and distinguishes between 'mandated hash-locked loops' and 'custom loops you registered with loop_register'. It also lists the fields returned and clarifies that no full bodies are included, fully differentiating it from siblings like loop_register.

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 implies it should be used to get an overview of all available loops, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., loop_next for stepping through loops). There is no 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites, leaving usage interpretation to the agent.

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