render_run_protocol

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral detail beyond that: the protocol is paste-ready, includes a durable state-file skeleton, stop conditions, budget, a risk-colored approval boundary, and undo-losers discipline for tick loops. It stops short of saying what is returned (inline markdown vs. file) or what happens on a bad id_or_slug.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the content enumeration. The first sentence is a dense but scannable list where each item earns its place; the second adds the session/tick split. Slightly list-heavy, but no filler or repetition.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating the protocol's sections. The remaining gap is the delivery form (returned as text, written to a file, or a URL) and error handling for an unresolved id_or_slug, which an agent would want before invoking.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by explaining the two protocol flavors that the `kind` enum selects between (session rounds vs. scheduled-tick experiment logs) and by tying budgets, risk-colored approval, and the goal to their respective parameters. That meaning is not present in the schema strings alone.

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 leads with a specific verb+resource: 'Render a loop as an executable markdown run protocol an agent can follow directly,' and then enumerates the artifact's contents, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling (design_loop, critique_loop, get_loop), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description explains that session loops get bounded rounds and scheduled-tick loops get experiment logs, which hints at when each flavor applies, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus design_loop or critique_loop, nor any prerequisite (e.g., the loop must already exist).

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