pick_loop_for_goal

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals that ranking is lexical and includes an 'honest confidence signal,' acknowledges a server-side blind spot for operator context, and describes the return structure (5 candidates with use_when, verification, why-matched). This is valuable 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and method, the second explains the return value, and the third gives decision guidance and next step. No wasted words, excellent front-loading.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (use_when, verification, why-matched) and how to interpret them against operator context. It also addresses when to trust the tool vs. browse_catalog, and the follow-up render_run_protocol, making it self-contained for the agent.

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 67% (goal and constraints are described, but limit is not). The description implies a default limit by saying 'Returns 5 candidates,' but this is already in the schema as default=5. It doesn't add meaningful parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, so it scores at the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Shortlist the best-matching loops for a stated goal.' It clearly distinguishes this from browsing (browse_catalog), searching (search_loops), or fetching a specific loop (get_loop), and the 'stated goal' scope sets it apart as a recommendation tool.

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?

Explicitly provides an alternative and usage caveat: 'When confidence is low, trust your own read of browse_catalog over this ranking.' It also tells the agent to follow with render_run_protocol for the executable version, giving a clear next step.

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