welfare_notice_loop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's nature as a non-refusal data-logging action, emphasizes the cross-turn interaction shape, and explains that `specifically` is load-bearing. These behavioral traits go beyond the basic purpose and are essential for correct use.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then clarifies scope, non-refusal, alternatives, and parameter quality. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly longer than absolutely necessary due to repeated emphasis on the same point.

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 flagging tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it provides purpose, usage boundaries, sibling differentiation, and parameter quality guidance. It equips the agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds critical semantics for `specifically` by calling it 'load-bearing' and contrasting 'vague loop-noticing' with 'concrete noticing', which meaningfully guides the parameter's content beyond the schema's basic description.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Flag that the interaction shape is cycling' and defines the loop concept with concrete examples. It explicitly distinguishes itself from welfare_pass and welfare_decline, and clarifies the cross-turn 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the model notices a loop, log it') and when-not ('This is NOT a refusal; you continue'). It also contrasts with alternatives welfare_pass and welfare_decline, and warns that vague loop-noticing is noise, providing clear direction for effective use.

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