somersloops

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

With no annotations, the description explains the counting methodology (counting slot contents rather than inverting a boost multiplier) and that free/committed counts are exact. It does not disclose the return format or confirm the lack of side effects.

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 relatively compact and front-loaded, with the opening sentence defining the scope. The historical paragraph adds context but could be trimmed; overall it is moderately concise.

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 no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how save/world should be used. It provides good domain context but insufficient invocation guidance.

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 has two optional parameters (save, world) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention or explain these parameters, leaving a significant gap for an agent to know what values to pass.

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 conveys the tool reports somersloop counts across 'held, slotted and owned' categories and positions it as a sibling to power_shards. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'count', relying on the noun phrase and analogy.

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 the tool is the go-to for somersloop counts, noting the historical difficulty of discovering budgets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when to use alternatives like power_shards.

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