tandem_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that duplicate reads do not authorize repeated effects, stranded claims are never automatically released, claims grant no filesystem/external permissions, and external effects need their own idempotency/transaction boundary. This is substantial behavioral content, though it leaves definitions like 'terminal result' implicit.

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 terse and well-packaged: every sentence adds a distinct rule about claiming, completing, or safety boundaries, and the core for the central purpose is front-loaded. No filler or repetition is present.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the lifecycle and several important corner cases. Yet it is cryptic about what a receipt represents in practice, does not define the reported status action, and relies heavily on domain-specific vocabulary without orienting an unfamiliar agent.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It does: 'claim' and 'complete' map to the action enum and 'token' is explained as the outcome of a claim. However, it never mentions the task_id parameter or describes the 'status' action, leaving part of the parameter surface under-documented.

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 indicates the tool coordinates result processing via claim, status, and complete, and says it is separate from reading/acknowledging events. However, the verb 'gate' is vague and the description never states plainly what the tool is or differentiates it from siblings like tandem_result or tandem_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?

There is useful procedural guidance: claim before applying a terminal result, complete with the token after handling, and do not rely on duplicate claims. Still, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the usage guidance is largely inferred.

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