claim_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the atomic claim, lease mechanism, failure behavior, and the implication that update_task renews the lease. It explains how the task returns to the board on agent crash, ensuring no stalls. This is comprehensive for a tool without annotations.

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 concise with two paragraphs, front-loading the core action. However, the second paragraph is a block of text that could be broken down for clarity. It is still short and to the point.

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?

The description covers the primary behavior, failure conditions, lease lifecycle, and next steps. Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), missing return value details are acceptable. It does not address permissions or error codes, but the core functionality is well-covered.

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%, but the description only mentions the lease concept without explaining any of the three parameters (task_id, agent_id, lease_seconds). It does not define what agent_id represents or how lease_seconds affects the lease. The agent would need to infer parameter meanings from context, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool atomically claims an open task, specifies failure conditions (taken or not ready), and distinguishes from siblings like complete_task and get_briefing. The verb 'claim' and resource 'task' are specific and unique.

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 explicit post-claim guidance ('call get_briefing before starting') and implies usage in a workflow with lease renewal via update_task. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other siblings beyond the workflow context.

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