loop_status

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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or handles errors. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action, missing key details for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get the current status of the loop') and lists the retrieved data points without unnecessary words. Every element serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers what data is retrieved, but without annotations or an output schema, it doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of the status object) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a status-checking tool, this leaves some contextual needs unmet.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output semantics. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without parameters, as the schema fully covers the input structure.

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 tool's purpose with the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'current status of the loop', including what information is retrieved (phase, branch, task list, failure reason, PR URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'advance_loop', 'start_debug_loop', and 'start_loop' by focusing on status retrieval rather than initiation or progression, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 by listing the specific data points retrieved (e.g., phase, failure reason), suggesting it's for monitoring or checking loop progress. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check status vs. start or advance a loop) or any prerequisites, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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