ecosystem_claim_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool 'claims' a repo, implying a state change (marking it as claimed), and returns the shallow_summary. However, it does not explain side effects in detail (e.g., whether the claim is blocking, expiration, or required permissions). The return value is mentioned, but deeper behavioral traits are absent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and follow with necessary context. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff. It is efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return values beyond mentioning shallow_summary. It explains the filtering logic clearly. However, it could be improved by noting any prerequisites (e.g., worker registration) or what happens if no matching repo exists. Overall, it is fairly complete for a claim tool.

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%, with both parameters (worker_id, min_stars) already described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no extra parameter insight is given.

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 tool's purpose: 'Claim the next shallow_done repo for quality review.' It specifies the action (claim), the resource (shallow_done repo), and the context (quality review). The additional details about filtering criteria differentiate it from sibling tools like ecosystem_claim_shallow, which likely handles shallow scanning claims.

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 explains when to use the tool: when a repo is in 'shallow_done' status with no quality_score and no active claim. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. However, the specificity is sufficient for an agent to understand the intended scenario.

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