get_completion_loop_target

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., behavior on missing directive, multiple targets). With annotations covering the core traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, directly to the point, with no unnecessary words. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Tool returns a value (likely a string or object) but no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at the return format. For a retrieval tool, this is a significant gap. Also, no prerequisites or side effects are mentioned.

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 covers the single parameter with description 'Directive name' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 'Get where to loop back after completing directive' states a specific verb and resource but is vague. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_next_completion_path' or 'get_completion_paths_by_status', which also deal with completion targets.

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 alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to prefer this over 'get_next_completion_path' or 'get_incomplete_completion_paths'. The description lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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