get_loops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what it gets, not how it behaves. For instance, the parameter 'include_false_positives' implies default filtering, but the description says 'all detected loop patterns', which is misleading or at least unclear. No mention of error handling, what happens if a session doesn't exist, or return format.

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, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so sparse that it fails to include necessary details, but for conciseness alone it earns a 4 as it has no wasted words.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, or edge-case behavior. A simple getter still needs to clarify what 'loop patterns' are, how false positives are handled, and what the output looks like. The description is minimally functional at best.

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 does not explain either parameter. It mentions 'for a session' which implies the session_id, but 'include_false_positives' is entirely undocumented. The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema field names.

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 'Get all detected loop patterns for a session' clearly specifies a getter operation for loop patterns scoped to a session. It is unambiguous about the resource and action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_loops' or 'get_convergence'. The name and description together make the purpose apparent.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that loops must be detected first), exclusions, or when to prefer a sibling tool like 'detect_loops'. The description gives no situational context.

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