loop_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description solely discloses key behaviors: images are downscaled and base64-inlined, the page can render offline or via email, and output is written next to the run state by default with optional out_path. This covers important traits beyond the schema, though permissions or performance are not addressed.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the primary purpose, explains why this artifact is important, then provides technical details about image handling and output location. Every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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 (though not shown), the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, usage, output format, and file location. However, it does not indicate whether the result is a success message or status, which might be useful.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains that out_path can be set to place the report anywhere, adding meaning beyond the schema's default string type. The run_id parameter is implied by context (the run to report), but no explicit description is given. This is adequate but not rich.

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 renders the entire run as a self-contained HTML page, detailing what changed, was kept, reverted, and final. This is specific to generating a final report, distinguishing it from siblings like loop_best or loop_record which handle other aspects of the loop workflow.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: at the sign-off checkpoint alongside the result, emphasizing the artifact's value as evidence of convergence. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternative tools, though the purpose is sufficiently distinct.

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