ecosystem_claim_shallow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses atomic behavior (only one worker claims) and return fields. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist). However, it omits details like authentication needs or potential side effects beyond claiming.

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 very concise, with three clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains atomicity, and the third notes additional return fields. No redundant information, well-structured.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately does not detail return values but mentions key fields. It covers the tool's behavior and usage context well. Some possible prerequisites (e.g., needing to be a registered worker) are not mentioned, but for a tool with one parameter, it is reasonably complete.

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 the single parameter 'worker_id', which is already described as 'Unique worker identifier string.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description explicitly states 'Claim the next queued repo for shallow scanning (stage_status=queued).' This clearly indicates the verb 'Claim' and the resource 'repo' with context, distinguishing it from siblings like ecosystem_claim_review which likely claims for review.

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 guidance by noting atomicity (only one worker gets each row) and that since v1.7.0 it returns extra fields to avoid a separate ecosystem_repo_get call. This implies when it's beneficial to use, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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