Open queue claims

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds rich context beyond them: ordering, repo path resolution via walking up to crapkit.toml, and two specific error states (init pointer, coverage pointer) that return isError true. It also explains the absence of write capabilities and how claims are released or closed elsewhere.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and usage triggers, and every sentence carries relevant information. It is slightly dense with CLI command syntax and edge-case error behavior, but none of that is filler given the tool's role in a larger workflow.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers usage triggers, path semantics, error scenarios, and the write-boundary of the tool set. Everything an agent needs to call this correctly is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'repo may be any directory under the checkout, since the server walks up to the nearest crapkit.toml.' This is useful semantic context for an otherwise simple parameter.

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, resource, and ordering ('Lists open claims on queue items, oldest first'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_next_item by naming when it is needed. An agent can clearly tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('when get_next_item answers empty or skipped_claimed above 0') and names an alternative purpose for get_function_brief. It also clarifies that no tool writes a claim and points to the CLI for stale-claim release, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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