claim_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context that active claims are runtime-enforced coordination state, which is useful for understanding the data semantics. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behaviors such as pagination, filtering defaults, or the shape of the returned list. It adds modest value beyond the annotations.

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, compact sentence that is easily scannable. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying note. No wasted words, though it could arguably include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema and the 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It doesn't explain the meaning of workId and activeOnly, nor what fields the returned list will contain. For a list operation, this is a significant gap; an agent cannot reliably construct a correct query.

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% and the description makes no mention of the two parameters (workId and activeOnly). The parameter names give some hints (workId likely filters by work, activeOnly likely filters to active claims), but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation. An agent is left to guess the exact semantics and possible values.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (durable resource ownership claims), and clarifies that active claims are runtime-enforced coordination state, not chat suggestions. This distinguishes it from action siblings like claim_acquire and claim_release, though it doesn't name them explicitly. It's clear enough to identify the tool's function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the appropriate tool for viewing current claims, nor does it contrast with claim_acquire or claim_release. The clarification about active claims is interpretive, not usage guidance. An agent must infer the intended use case.

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