critique_loop

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent hints, the description reveals that it is 'deterministic text lint, not a model', and explains that 'missing' means 'not stated'. It also discloses the return format (0–10 score, per-check fixes, related catalog loops), which is critical since there is no output schema. This adds substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a compact list of rubric areas and a parenthetical clarification. It is about 45 words, with no redundancy; every clause adds information, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, input, behavioral nature, and output. It explicitly states what is returned and the meaning of 'missing', so no important information is absent.

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 already fully describes the single parameter (loop_description) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional detail about format, length, or examples beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 immediately states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Lint any loop design'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like design_loop (which creates) and search_loops (which searches), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies the intended use context: 'the operator's own, or one you drafted', and notes that it is deterministic lint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough to guide correct usage among siblings.

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