ralph_loop_block

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a file (RALPH-BLOCKED.md) and implies state mutation by blocking the iteration. With no annotations, this is helpful but incomplete; it doesn't explain whether the block is reversible, what happens to in-progress work, or any other side effects.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and key behavioral aspect (file creation). It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the purpose, typical user, and a key effect. It is complete enough for a focused tool, though more details about blocking semantics would be ideal.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions 'reason' but doesn't add additional meaning (e.g., format, length, or examples) beyond the schema's description. Thus, baseline 3.

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 ('blocks the current iteration') and the specific resource (RALPH-BLOCKED.md file creation). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ralph_loop_submit_work or ralph_loop_get_status by being the only 'block' tool.

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 explicitly says 'Worker uses this when stuck,' which provides clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use (e.g., if the worker can proceed) or suggest alternatives like ralph_loop_get_feedback or ralph_loop_submit_work.

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