list_loops

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It does not explicitly state that listing is read-only, mention side effects, or describe return behavior. While 'List all' implies a read operation, this is not explicitly disclosed, leaving a transparency gap.

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, concise sentence, making it well-structured and easy to parse. However, it essentially restates the tool name without adding extra context, so it is efficient but not maximally informative.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but misses usage context and behavioral transparency. It does not clarify what 'screen loops' are or how this relates to sibling tools, so it leaves gaps that the agent must infer.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is trivially complete, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because there are no parameters to describe. This is appropriate for a parameter-less tool.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies a distinct resource ('DAKboard screen loops'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_loop' (single item) and 'list_screens' (different entity). This is unambiguous and actionable.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'list_screens' or 'get_loop', nor does it state any prerequisites or context for use. It simply restates the function without situational cues.

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