claim_task

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

The description enriches the annotation-declared idempotency by explaining the atomic uniqueness row, the `already_taken` failure response, and the idempotent success on repeat claims. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent predict runtime behavior.

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 compact and information-dense, covering purpose, atomicity, race condition, idempotency, and self-only constraint in three sentences with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the critical aspects: when to claim, the atomic/unique semantics, the failure mode, idempotency, and the self-only limitation. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema fully documents the required `task_id` parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema's description 'taken from list_actionable_tasks' already provides sufficient guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Claim a task for yourself before working on it.' It clearly identifies the verb (claim), the resource (task), and the scope (for yourself), distinguishing it from sibling tools like assign_people and release_task.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('before working on it') and implicitly warns against using it for other users ('never for another user'). It also advises what to do if a race is lost ('should simply pick another task'), but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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