request_loopback

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the backward move and allowed stage pairs, without explaining side effects on the current session, whether prior work is preserved, or how the loopback request is resolved.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and a dense transition list. It is concise and free of filler, though it is terse enough that it under-serves the required parameters.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It identifies allowed transitions but leaves required parameters unexplained, effects unspecified, and sibling-tool relationships unaddressed.

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 0%, and the description only mildly hints at valid values for to_stage through the examples. It provides no meaning for the required name and reason parameters, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call confidently.

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?

States a specific action ('Loop back to an earlier stage') and enumerates allowed transitions (test->define, test->empathize, define->empathize), which clarifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like step_session or resolve_gate, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as step_session or submit_input. The transition list implies it is for backward movement, but there are no exclusions, triggers, or alternative-routing instructions.

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