claim_acquire

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false (non‑destructive), which already set the mutation profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Atomically' discloses atomicity, and 'Conflicting exclusive claims are rejected by the runtime' explains a key failure mode. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not describe other behaviors like TTL expiry or session binding.

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 with no filler. It front‑loads the core action and immediately follows with the conflict behavior. Every word contributes value, and the structure is efficient and clear.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and zero description coverage on parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success (e.g., what is returned), how TTL works, or clarify edge cases like shared_read vs exclusive conflicts. An agent would need to infer too much about the mechanics of claiming.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. It fails to explain workId, sessionId, resource, kind, mode, or ttlSeconds. While parameter names and enum values in the schema are somewhat self‑explanatory, ttlSeconds is ambiguous and no parameter is described in text. The description provides no help beyond what the schema already shows.

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: 'Atomically claim a file, directory, interface, or workspace for a work item.' It specifies the resource types and the purpose, and is easily distinguished from siblings like claim_release (opposite action) and claim_list (listing claims). The verb+resource structure is specific and 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: you claim when you need to acquire a resource for a work item. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use claim_release to release a claim' or 'Check existing claims with claim_list first'). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, and there is no mention of when not to use it.

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