ralph_loop_get_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'Returns work output and summary' without mentioning side effects, authorization needs, or whether it is read-only. Additional context about what 'work output' entails is missing.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the action and result. No unnecessary words, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) is acceptable for such a short description.

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 description is minimal given the tool's context (no output schema, no annotations). It does not explain the nature of 'work output and summary', nor does it provide details about the reviewer phase or how it relates to sibling tools. More context would be beneficial for a complete understanding.

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 input schema already documents the sessionId parameter with a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'worker's submitted work', and the context 'for the reviewer phase'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like ralph_loop_submit_work and ralph_loop_submit_review.

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 implies usage in the reviewer phase but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ralph_loop_get_task or ralph_loop_get_feedback. No when-not-to-use or specific prerequisites are mentioned.

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