get_open_loops

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the semantics of open loops, the ordering, the filter behaviors including the special 'unassigned' owner value and the claimable True/False mapping, and lists the exact return fields. This goes well beyond a basic restatement.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a short clarifying definition, a bulleted list of filters, and a return specification. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted words 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, how filters work, what data is returned. The presence of an output schema (even if not shown) is complemented by the explicit return keys. Sibling tools are clearly differentiated by operation type.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining each optional filter's meaning, providing an example for lane ('retention-b'), and clarifying the claimable boolean semantics. The special 'unassigned' value for owner is also documented. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 'Return open loops for a project, oldest first' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the concept of open loops and explicitly distinguishes ordering behavior. This sets it apart from sibling tools like mark_open_loop_resolved or assign_open_loop.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—listing open loops for a project—and explains the rationale for oldest-first ordering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the intent is unambiguous. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions.

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