tasks_claim

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds rich behavioral context: atomicity, lease mechanism, refusal causes (already claimed, blocked, closed), heartbeat effect, lease expiration, and that session_end releases all claims. No contradictions with annotations.

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 paragraph but well-structured: core action first, then refusal details, then reclaim/release behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information. A slight redundancy in the refusal explanation could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 4 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers lifecycle (claim, reclaim, release), edge cases (expired leases, refusal), and relationships with sibling tools. Could optionally describe the return value, but not required.

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 coverage is 100% with all 4 parameters described. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the 'session' parameter (defaults, ambiguity when multiple agents) and the 'lease_seconds' default (900). It also contextualizes the 'id' parameter within refusal scenarios.

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 action: 'Atomically claim a task for the current session, moving it to in_progress with a lease.' It uses specific verbs (claim, moves) and resources (task, session, lease). It distinguishes from siblings like tasks_release, tasks_update, and session_end by mentioning them 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 description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It explains that re-claiming refreshes the lease, expired leases can be reclaimed, and tasks should be released via tasks_release or closed via tasks_update. It also describes refusal scenarios, helping the agent decide when to use alternatives.

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