get_loop_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation and the description lists what is returned, but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, permissions, or other behavior beyond retrieval.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no extraneous content.

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?

For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It names all key outputs and clearly signals the tool's role among siblings, making it fully understandable without additional context.

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 has zero parameters, making schema coverage vacuous. The description adds value by enumerating the specific outputs (loop state, active thesis, pending decisions, iteration count), which helps the agent understand what to expect despite having no inputs to configure.

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 'Return' and the resource 'loop state', listing specific outputs (active thesis, pending decisions, iteration count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_autonomous_loop and get_risk_status by focusing solely on loop status.

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 for checking loop status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The tool name and description make the intended use obvious, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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