ralph_iterate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds substantial behavioral context beyond basic function. It discloses multiple behavioral traits: tracking iteration history, running external tools, analyzing progress, detecting stagnation, creating git commits, and deciding loop continuation. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps for a complex iteration tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of functions and enhanced features. Every sentence adds value, though the bulleted list could be slightly more concise. There's minimal waste, but the structure isn't perfectly optimized (e.g., the enhanced features list overlaps somewhat with the main functions).

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 (iteration management with multiple functions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains key behaviors like progress analysis, stagnation detection, and git integration. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error responses, which is a gap since there's no output schema to compensate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format details for 'last_output' or clarify relationships between parameters). The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Process the next iteration of a Ralph loop with enhanced tracking.' It specifies the verb ('process') and resource ('Ralph loop iteration'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'ralph_loop' (which likely starts the loop) or 'ralph_cancel' (which stops it). The enhanced tracking features are mentioned but not contrasted with sibling functionality.

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 usage context: 'After completing work on the current iteration, call this tool...' This suggests it should be used iteratively within a loop workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use 'ralph_loop' vs. 'ralph_iterate'). The guidance is present but incomplete for sibling differentiation.

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