Delimit Build Loop

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond this by detailing side effects per loop_type: 'cycle/build dispatches swarm work; social drafts replies; deploy runs gates and publishes.' It also discloses that 'All loops write to the loop_engine's session record.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections: primary statement, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, side effects, and loop types. Every section earns its place and the critical scoping information is front-loaded. The ticket reference 'LED-239' is minor noise but does not undermine clarity.

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 complex loop-driving tool with an output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains the loop variants, side effects, exclusions, and alternative tools. The agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without needing additional inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds behavioral context for loop_type values (cycle/build/social/deploy) but does not meaningfully expand on action or cycle_mode beyond what the schema provides. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute one iteration of a governed continuous loop.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools, stating 'delimit_loop_status reads; delimit_loop_config sets policy; this drives one iteration.' This makes the tool's unique role unmistakable.

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 provides an explicit 'When to use' section and an explicit 'When NOT to use' section, naming the exact alternative tools (delimit_loop_status, delimit_loop_config) for those cases. This gives an agent clear branching guidance.

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