get_open_loops

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (list of dicts with keys) and ordering. This is adequate for a simple read operation, though it could mention that it only returns open loops (not resolved) and that it does not modify state.

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?

Four sentences: purpose, definition, ordering rationale, and return format. Extremely concise with no redundant information. Well-structured.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, what it returns, and the ordering. No gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'project_key'. The description states it returns loops 'for a project', clarifying the parameter's role, but does not provide format, examples, or constraints (e.g., how to find the project key). It adds some value but leaves ambiguity.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'open loops for a project', and specifies ordering. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'mark_open_loop_resolved' or 'get_project_state'.

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 explains ordering rationale ('Oldest-first because the longest-waiting item is most likely blocking'), providing context for usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_state' or 'mark_open_loop_resolved'.

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