aiworkhub_manager_loop_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing exactly which state dimensions are reported (turn-running flag, queued sends, last outcome), which tells the agent this is a point-in-time snapshot rather than an event stream.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the read-only framing, followed immediately by the concrete payload contents. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return shape, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does. A note about behavior when no loop/session exists (error vs. empty status) would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the schema needs explanation and the description correctly implies no arguments are required.

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 names a specific resource (the loop's current status) and enumerates the exact fields reported: active session, whether a turn is running, queued owner sends, and last turn outcome. That distinguishes it implicitly from loop_events (history) and loop_continue/send (actions), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'MANAGER READ:' prefix hints that this is a read-side operation for the manager agent, but there is no statement of when to call it versus loop_events, session_current_state, or supervisor_loop_status. The agent must infer the polling/checkpoint use case.

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