ddflow_loops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the behavior well: detects various loop types and returns [] when nothing is wrong. It doesn't explicitly state whether it's read-only or has side effects, but for a detection tool this is implicitly safe. The description adds useful context about the specific loop patterns it identifies.

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: it starts with the core purpose, lists specific loop types, gives a clear usage directive, and ends with the return behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's detailed but not bloated, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the return value for the no-issue case. However, it doesn't describe the structure of the returned data when issues are found (e.g., does it return a list of issues, objects, etc.). Since there's no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall it's sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it, but the return format could be clearer.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and there's nothing to explain. The description focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the tool does rather than parameter details.

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 detects circular references and runtime loops, listing specific loop types (dependency cycles, repeated claims, flipping gates, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddflow_status or ddflow_recover, which focus on other aspects of workflow state.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'CALL THIS WHEN WORK FEELS REPETITIVE' and explains it's a check to stop and re-plan. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context makes the usage clear. A slight gap is not mentioning when NOT to use it beyond the implied 'when work doesn't feel repetitive'.

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