delimit_build_loop_daemon

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects (daemon thread spawn/halt, JSONL logging, config safeguards, premium gating). While comprehensive, it lacks details on error handling or concurrency behavior, but overall adds valuable transparency.

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-organized with clear sections (purpose, when to use, when not, sibling contrast, side effects). Every sentence is informative and free of fluff, making it easy for an AI to parse quickly.

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 (daemon lifecycle, multiple parameters, safeguards) and the presence of an output schema for return values, the description covers all necessary aspects: spawning, stopping, logging, and respecting configuration. It is self-contained for decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context (e.g., default interval of 15 minutes, loop_type options) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions. The side effects section links action values to behavior, which is helpful but not novel.

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 as a 'Background auto-pull daemon' for governed loops, which is specific and distinct from the one-shot 'delimit_build_loop' sibling. It uses strong verbs ('spawns', 'ticks') and defines the resource (governed build/social/deploy loops).

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections are provided, with direct alternatives: 'delimit_build_loop' for one-shot and 'delimit_loop_status' for metrics. Sibling contrast further clarifies the choice.

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