delimit_build_loop_daemon

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: daemon spawning, interval-based iteration calls, logging to a specific file path, and respect for loop_config safeguards. It adds context beyond schema about the pull-based pattern and session-specific logging.

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 detailed yet focused, with a clear topic sentence and supporting details. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds necessary context without redundancy. Slight room for tightening but well-structured.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers daemon behavior, logging, safeguards, and parameter usage. For a complex daemon tool, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds extra meaning: e.g., 'Only used on start' for interval_seconds and loop_type, and explains the default action 'status'. This provides operational context the schema doesn't convey.

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 as a 'background auto-pull daemon for the governed build/social/deploy loops'. It specifies the verb (spawns, calls), resource (daemon thread), and distinguishes from siblings like delimit_build_loop by focusing on daemon behavior and logging.

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 for automating loop pulls via a daemon, but does not explicitly define when to use this vs alternatives like delimit_build_loop or delimit_daemon_run. No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.

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