Pick up a handoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It discloses that refs with moved versions are reported as stale rather than silently swapped, which is a valuable behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose whether claiming is idempotent, whether it removes the packet from the queue, or what happens if the handoff_id is invalid. A 3 is appropriate because while it adds some behavior context, significant gaps remain for a mutation-like tool.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, usage nuance, and a critical behavioral quirk (stale refs). No waste, front-loaded with the key action. The behavioral detail is earned and non-redundant.

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?

Given the tool's action (claiming a packet, likely a mutation) with no annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the description is reasonably complete for its complexity but falls short. It explains the core behavior and a trick (stale refs), but omits return format details, error cases (e.g., no open packets), and whether claiming is mutable or reads the state. For a single-param tool with no output schema, a 3 reflects adequate but not robust completeness.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. The description implies handoff_id is optional ('or a specific one by id') and suggests default behavior is to claim the oldest open packet. However, it does not document the handoff_id parameter's format, semantics, or constraints. Given the low coverage and single parameter, this is a notable gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Claim' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the oldest open packet addressed to this agent (or a specific one by id)' and states the return of both the packet and pinned records. It distinguishes from siblings like 'handoff' (likely a related tool) and 'remember'/'recall' by emphasizing a claim/retrieve action on open packets.

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 clarifies when to use this tool: to claim an open packet addressed to the agent, with an optional specific id. It implicitly excludes use for packets not addressed to the agent or not open. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if the agent already has a claimed packet) or provide explicit alternatives among siblings.

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