get_loop_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It implies read-only access ('Get full details ... from the catalog') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or idempotent, nor address auth, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by clearly communicating the action, resource, and scope. Ideal conciseness for a simple retrieval tool.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate but lacks specificity. It says 'full details' without hinting at the return structure or fields. For an agent to decide if this tool meets its needs, more context about what 'details' entails would be helpful.

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% and the schema already describes the single parameter as 'Loop ID or name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating it as 'specific loop'. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value is provided.

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 it retrieves 'full details of a specific loop from the catalog', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_loop (analysis) or craft_loop (creation), so an agent can easily identify its purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like get_loop_recommendations or analyze_loop could be confused, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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