claim_rob

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the return format (unsigned CBOR hex transaction requiring client-side signing), which is critical for integration. However, it omits side effects (what state changes occur), failure modes, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose; second states return value. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, and description adequately compensates by specifying the unsigned transaction return format. However, lacks context on ROB lifecycle stage, error conditions, and relationship to the claiming protocol. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, providing detailed param semantics (bech32 format, UTxO references). Description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema, mentioning 'ROB position' generally. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action (Claim) and target (received iAssets from an ROB position). Distinguishes from sibling ROB operations (open, adjust, cancel, redeem) by specifying the 'claim received assets' phase of the lifecycle. Does not expand 'ROB' acronym, though contextually clear among siblings.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redeem_rob or cancel_rob. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing ROB position with claimable assets) or workflow sequencing.

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