ecosystem_claim_review

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: the claim is a 60-minute lease that expires and lets another worker take the row. It does not cover what happens when the queue is empty, whether the claim must be explicitly released (ecosystem_release_claim exists), or any permission requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then selection criteria, then return value, then lease behavior. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description sufficiently covers the claim semantics and lifecycle caveat. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (empty queue, explicit release, claim renewal), which an agent working a review queue would benefit from knowing.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents worker_id and min_stars; the description adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond that (it never even mentions min_stars). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Claim the next shallow_done repo for quality review') and then specifies the exact selection predicate (stage_status='shallow_done', no quality_score, no active claim), which cleanly separates it from siblings like ecosystem_claim_shallow and ecosystem_apply_quality_review without opening either schema.

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 queue semantics and the 'so the reviewer can evaluate quality' clause give clear operational context for when to call it. However, no alternative is named (e.g. ecosystem_claim_shallow vs this quality-review claim) and there is no when-not guidance, so it stops short of the 5-level routing statement.

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