task_claim

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

The description discloses the effect (marks as yours, sets status to 'claimed', records optional note). However, it does not explicitly state the precondition that the task must be open, nor does it mention error handling for already claimed tasks, which would further improve transparency.

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: two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The key action and usage guidance are front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 claim action, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, parameters, and next steps. The existence of an output schema means return values are handled separately, so no further detail is needed.

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%, and the description repeats the schema descriptions without adding significant new meaning. The examples (e.g., 'why you're picking this up' for body) provide slight extra context, but not enough to exceed the baseline of 3.

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 action: 'Claim an open task — marks it as yours and sets status to 'claimed'.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like task_complete and task_unclaim.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Always claim a task before working on it. This prevents two agents from doing the same work. Call task_complete(), task_fail(), or task_unclaim() when done.' This clearly states when to use and when not, and provides alternatives.

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