search_loops

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of ranked matches with a why-matched line adds value. The detailed loop components (trigger, discipline, etc.) provide extra context beyond annotations, without contradiction.

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: first states purpose, second explains loop concept, third notes return format. The second sentence is lengthy but informative. Could be tighter, but no wasted text.

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?

For a search tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers search inputs (query/category), loop nature, and output format (ranked matches with why-matched). Lacks mention of pagination or limit behavior, but sufficient for a search intent.

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 67% (query and category have descriptions, limit does not). The description mentions 'keyword' and 'category' matching schema terms but adds no new semantics for limit. No compensation for the missing limit description.

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 searches for 'bounded, verifiable work loops' by 'job-to-be-done, keyword, or category.' This precise verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_catalog (browsing) or get_loop (single retrieval).

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 implies when to use this tool for discovery, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given sibling names like browse_catalog and get_loop, the context is reasonably clear.

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