claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the PRIVATE_KEY requirement and the asset transformation, but it omits details on reversibility, idempotency, or failure conditions. This is a clear but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding sequencing and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 3-parameter claim operation, the description provides the essential context: purpose, sequence, and key requirement. The schema fully covers parameters. It lacks mention of output or edge cases, but the overall package is adequate for correct invocation.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema, including pool index meanings, a 'must match' constraint, and an example collateral token. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the schema provides the baseline coverage.

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's action ('Claim redeemed TLP tokens back as underlying collateral') and positions it as the final step in a defined sequence, distinguishing it from siblings like 'redeem_tlp' and 'unstake'.

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 explicitly places this tool in the 'unstake → redeem → claim' flow, giving clear timing relative to other operations. It also notes the PRIVATE_KEY prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the implied order.

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