design_loop

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the output content (trigger, scope, etc.) and the MVL sanity check. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise with two sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value (purpose, output details, follow-up). No unnecessary 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 strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and output. It mentions the return fields and a sanity check. Slightly incomplete regarding error conditions or return format, but acceptable for a design tool.

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 coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are clear. The description essentially paraphrases the schema (e.g., 'bottleneck or outcome' for goal) without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Scaffold a NEW loop spec'), the resource ('loop spec'), and the condition ('when no catalog loop fits'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like browse_catalog and search_loops.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('when no catalog loop fits') and a follow-up step ('Follow with critique_loop'). It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the condition implies alternatives.

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