Delimit Loop Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the explicit 'Side effects: read-only' statement and the internal call target, but these largely repeat or extend the annotation without revealing meaningful additional behavioral constraints such as permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 tightly organized with clear labeled sections: what it does, when to use it, when not to use it, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every section earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary context: target resource, metrics inspected, alternatives, and exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 single session_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the 'Empty = most recent session' behavior. The description mentions 'for a session' but does not need to add parameter details since the schema carries that burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('autonomous loop metrics for a session') and enumerates the metrics returned: iterations completed, cost, errors, and safeguard status. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that delimit_loop_config configures and delimit_build_loop runs, while this tool reports the result.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections clearly state the appropriate context for inspection and route the agent to the sibling tools delimit_loop_config and delimit_build_loop. The sibling contrast line reiterates the decision boundary, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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