project_open_loops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond the purpose. It is consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, though it could be clearer about the scope. Efficient but minimal.

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?

With 6 undocumented parameters and an output schema present but not described, the description leaves significant gaps. The agent cannot infer parameter roles or return format, making the tool hard to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters. While parameter names like projectId and limit are somewhat self-explanatory, the agent lacks guidance on required fields or effects, hurting usability.

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 lists unresolved findings, stale facts, and failed diagnostic runs, specifying the resource and verb. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on open loops for attention without rerunning broad checks.

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 when to use: to get pending items without rerunning diagnostics. It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent.

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