ralph_loop_get_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It mentions two return types but does not disclose side effects, whether it's read-only, authorization requirements, or default behavior for missing sessionId. Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key details. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly short but 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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return values more thoroughly. It mentions two outcomes but not their structure or format. Given the complexity of the tool in a multi-tool workflow, more context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, but the description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond its schema description ('Session identifier'). The tool description does not mention the parameter, so no extra value is added beyond the 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?

Description clearly states the action 'Get reviewer feedback' and specifies the context 'for the next worker iteration'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ralph_loop_get_status by mentioning two possible outcomes (feedback or completion status), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description implies usage when needing feedback for the next iteration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ralph_loop_submit_review or other get tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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