itsm_run_loop

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the pipeline steps and return value, but omits key side effects such as service restarts (only implied by the dry_run schema) or potential production impact. The step list gives some transparency, but deeper consequences are not mentioned.

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 exceptionally concise, using a compact step list and stating return values in two sentences. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant prose.

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 tool's complexity (orchestrating 6 steps), the description covers the workflow well but lacks prerequisites, failure behavior, and safety warnings. The existence of a dry_run parameter is in the schema, but the description does not fully explain the consequences of running the full loop in production, leaving gaps for a complex, likely impactful operation.

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 covers the only parameter (dry_run) with a clear description, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 triggers the full 6-step ITSM ProofLink loop with a specific sequence (DETECT -> TICKET -> DIAGNOSE -> REMEDIATE -> VERIFY -> CLOSE+SEAL), which distinguishes it from individual ITSM actions like itsm_create_ticket or itsm_close_ticket. It also specifies return values (sealed ticket IDs and receipt hashes), making the purpose concrete.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like itsm_run_test or the individual ITSM step tools. The dry_run parameter is described in the schema but the description does not position it as a usage condition or explain when to prefer this over more granular tools.

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