delimit_loop_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates it is a read operation showing metrics, but does not disclose what happens if no loop is active, authentication requirements, or whether the tool has side effects. The '(Pro)' tag hints at licensing but is not explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists the metrics. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and outputs. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., an active loop), but overall it is sufficient for a simple status check tool.

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% (only parameter session_id has a description in schema: 'The session to check. Uses most recent if empty.'). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('autonomous loop metrics'), and lists the metrics shown (iterations, cost, errors, tasks completed, safeguard status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delimit_loop_config or delimit_build_loop.

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 checking autonomous loop metrics, with a '(Pro)' hint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delimit_loop_config or delimit_gov_status). No exclusions are mentioned.

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