ecosystem_claim_shallow

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses atomicity (only one worker wins, others get {"claimed": false}), the lease duration (60 minutes), and reclaim behavior for unfinished rows. This is exactly the runtime semantics an agent needs and could not get from the schema.

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 sentences, each front-loaded and earning its place: action, atomicity guarantee, lease semantics, and what comes back. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description usefully pre-empts a follow-up call by listing the returned fields. Combined with the lease and atomicity disclosure, nothing an agent needs to invoke and reason about this tool is missing.

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% and there is only one parameter (worker_id), already documented in the schema. The description implies multi-worker contention but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (claim), a specific resource (next queued repo), and a scope (shallow scanning, stage_status='queued'). This clearly distinguishes it from the deep-review claim sibling, so an agent can pick the right one from the name and description alone.

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 tells the agent this is for pulling queued rows and even notes that no separate ecosystem_repo_get call is needed after it, which is useful context. But it never explicitly contrasts with ecosystem_claim_review or states when this shallow claim is preferred over a deep-review claim, leaving that inference to the reader.

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