waiting_on_loops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. The minimal description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and scope efficiently.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns, the meaning of 'open loops', or any constraints (e.g., pagination, filtering). The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool confidently.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds the scope 'across all allowed domains and channels', which provides useful context beyond the empty 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 uses a specific verb 'open' and resource 'loops', but 'loops' is ambiguous without domain context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like waiting_on_list (list loops) and waiting_on_show (show a loop), but 'open' is unclear whether it means retrieve, activate, or display.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like waiting_on_list or waiting_on_show. The description offers no context or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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