loot_claim_loot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool pays native ETH, determines amount from the receipt's Claimed event, and requires LOOT_AGENT_PRIVATE_KEY. However, it omits failure conditions, idempotency, or what happens if no pending share exists.

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?

Three sentences, each with substantive information: the core action, the payment and amount derivation, and the authentication requirement. No redundancy, efficiently front-loaded.

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?

For a simple single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does, how the amount is determined, and the required key. It lacks details about preconditions like checking outstanding shares, but overall adequate for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the single parameter 'token' is the address of the token for which to claim, adding meaning beyond the pattern-only schema. Still, it provides no further detail beyond that identification.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (claim), the resource (pending pot share for a specific token), and the source (ledger). It distinguishes itself from siblings like loot_claim_keys and loot_claim_rails by specifying 'pot share' and 'token'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as loot_claim_keys or loot_claim_rails. It implies a pending share exists but does not mention how to check or which conditions warrant this tool over others.

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