learning_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what the loop includes but does not disclose side effects, state changes, prerequisites, or return behavior. 'Build' suggests a generation action, but the tool could be read-only or mutating without any clarification.

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?

Single, focused sentence that front-loads the main action ('Build a ready-to-run learning loop') and then lists the key outputs. The parenthetical about cognitive techniques adds useful context without bloating the description. Very efficient.

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?

The tool has one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the high-level purpose but omits crucial details: what 'count' controls, what the output structure looks like, and any prerequisites. For a build tool, this is insufficient for safe and correct 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?

The input schema has one parameter ('count') with no description, and the tool description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter but instead omits it entirely, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to populate 'count'.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Build a ready-to-run learning loop') and enumerates the concrete outputs (what to review first, a self-test question, and a snapshot). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like practice_plan or spacing_plan by framing it as an integrated loop rather than a single plan.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., practice_plan, spacing_plan, review). The phrase 'ready-to-run' implies a use case for those wanting an actionable loop, but no exclusions or comparison is provided, leaving the decision to the agent.

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