loop_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: sha256 hashing with write-once versioning, safe id assignment, phase-gated splitting, local persistence, and the inability to overwrite specific mandated loops. It also assures data stays local, covering safety and privacy.

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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers the registration process, including hashing, storage, and streaming after registration. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but the output schema is absent. For a registration tool, this is nearly complete.

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 71%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters like 'content' and 'id' are used in the process, though it does not enumerate each parameter. This provides helpful context beyond the schema.

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 'Add' (register) and the resource 'YOUR loop to this machine's local MCP'. It details specific behaviors like hashing, id assignment, and phase splitting, and distinguishes from mandated loops, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (to add your own loop) and what not to do (cannot overwrite mandated loops). It also hints at streaming with loop_start, though it doesn't comprehensively compare with all sibling tools like loop_library. Overall, usage context is clear.

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