Claim Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well: it discloses the exclusive-lock side effect, the claimed/rejected status outcomes, and the rule that work must start only after a successful claim. It does not cover edge cases like invalid task_id or lock expiry, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage conditions, parameters, and return shape. Each section is short, scannable, and contains no filler.

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?

It covers the full call path: when to call, when not to call, parameter provenance, and return statuses. Given only two string parameters and a simple claimed/rejected result, nothing essential is missing and the output schema further covers the response shape.

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 0% and the schema only gives string types, but the description compensates fully: task_id is sourced from get_pending_tasks and agent_id is the stable agent role id tied to the subscription relationship. Both parameters receive meaning and constraints that the schema lacks.

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: '认领一个 Hook 分发的任务' with the clarifying parenthetical '多 Agent 防撞车的排他锁定'. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like get_pending_tasks (listing) and submit_graph_intent/graph_revision (other mutations).

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?

Dedicated '何时必须调用' and '何时不需要' sections give concrete conditions: claim after evaluation and before starting work, and do not claim when no change is needed. It also tells the agent what to do on rejection ('直接放弃'), which is actionable routing behavior.

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