delimit_loop_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('check', 'shows') but does not explicitly state read-only, permissions, or side effects. The 'Pro' label adds context about licensing but lacks depth.

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 concise lines: one for action, one for output summary. Efficient and front-loaded, but could benefit from a clearer structure (e.g., separating purpose and output).

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?

For a simple check tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and key output fields. Lacks mention of rate limits, authentication, or edge cases, but adequate for the complexity.

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% for the single parameter (session_id), so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema description.

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 explicitly states 'Check autonomous loop metrics' and lists specific metrics (iterations, cost, errors, tasks completed, safeguard status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling loop tools (e.g., delimit_build_loop, delimit_loop_config) by focusing on status/monitoring.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delimit_agent_status for agent-specific checks, delimit_obs_metrics for broader observability). The 'Pro' hint suggests a paid tier but lacks explicit context for usage conditions.

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