claim_issue

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: atomicity, exclusivity, lease duration range (60-3600s), renewability, failure on already claimed work, and idempotent retry replay. These go well beyond the annotations (which only state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and provide essential operational context.

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 a single sentence packed with relevant technical detail—atomic acquire, exclusive ready/review work, lease range, renewal, failure case, and idempotent retry. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core behavioral contract thoroughly, including atomicity, exclusivity, lease mechanics, and retry semantics. It does not explain when to use this tool relative to siblings, but with an output schema present and strong schema coverage, the missing piece is acceptable. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantic value: it mentions lease duration and keyed retries, but these largely echo the schema descriptions for lease_seconds and idempotency_key. No new parameter-level meaning is introduced.

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 tool atomically acquires exclusive ready/review work with a renewable lease. It distinguishes this from sibling actions like get_issue (read-only) and update_issue (modification). The verb 'acquire' and specific object 'exclusive ready/review work' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for claiming an issue when starting work, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like renew_attempt or get_work_context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided; usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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