ralph_loop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists features like iteration history tracking, Git integration, and stagnation detection, which add useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't clarify critical behaviors such as whether this is a long-running process, what permissions or resources it requires, or how errors are handled, leaving significant gaps for a tool with complex operations.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, starting with the core purpose, explaining the methodology, listing features in bullet points, and ending with a usage tip. Most sentences add value, though the bulleted list could be slightly condensed without losing clarity.

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 (starting iterative loops with multiple features) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and features but lacks details on execution flow, error handling, or output expectations, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively in this context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'prompt' or 'template_id' further). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Start a Ralph Wiggum iterative development loop' and explains it's 'a development methodology based on continuous AI agent loops.' It specifies the core function (starting iterative loops) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'ralph_iterate' or 'ralph_status' beyond mentioning templates.

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 provides some usage context by mentioning 'Use ralph_list_templates to see available templates,' which implies a prerequisite step. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ralph_iterate' or 'ralph_run_tools,' leaving the agent to infer based on the 'start' action.

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