get_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get detailed information' clearly conveys a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not disclose potential error behaviors, authentication requirements, or return format specifics. It provides basic transparency 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without extraneous information. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description adequately covers the core purpose and one key detail (screen rotation). However, without an output schema, it does not specify the full return structure or error semantics. Still, the description is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 (loop_id) with a minimal description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only implying that a loop ID is needed. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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's purpose with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'DAKboard screen loop', and distinguishes it from siblings like list_loops (list vs. get) and get_screen (loop vs. screen). The mention of 'screen rotation' adds specific scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when a user needs detailed loop information, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as list_loops or get_screen. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, so guidance is only implied.

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