mark_open_loop_resolved

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it requires admissible evidence, rejects self-reference, and returns a dict with specific keys. This gives the agent a good understanding of the tool's constraints and output, though auth or destructiveness are not mentioned.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The additional details about evidence refs and return format are provided in a structured manner, though it could be more organized.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose, return keys, and a key constraint, it lacks details on what happens if evidence is invalid, error scenarios, or how the tool fits into the broader workflow. Given no annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description partially compensates by explaining the format of 'evidence_refs' (must be '<kind>:<id>' strings). However, the 'loop_id' parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema, so the added value is moderate.

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 action 'Mark an open loop resolved' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'resolve_finding' by focusing on open loops.

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 mentions that the tool is gated and requires admissible evidence, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or what happens if conditions are not met.

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