loop_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description's statement that it 'does not write state' largely repeats the readOnly annotation and adds no further behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, or 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 two short sentences and front-loads the core read operation. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the readOnly annotation, but it does reinforce the non-mutating nature of the tool without adding significant bloat.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description minimally establishes that it returns status and summary. It does not explain the return shape or distinguish the tool from nearby read-oriented siblings, leaving some contextual gaps despite adequate annotation coverage.

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 description coverage is 75%, with id, authority_file, and workspace_root documented in the schema, though cwd is not. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself carries most of the parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read a durable loop contract status and summary.' This is distinguishable from loop_start, loop_stop, and loop_record_attempt, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related read tools such as state_read.

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 by saying it reads loop contract status and summary, and it clarifies that it does not write state. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling state and loop tools.

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