axint.agent.claim

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden well. It discloses that claims are local, short-lived, stored in a specific file, and have no network effects. This goes beyond annotations by explaining what gets written and the scope, without contradiction.

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 sentences: purpose, usage guideline, and effects. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 6 parameters (mostly optional) and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and effects. It explains the local coordination mechanism but omits mention of default TTL (though in schema) and conflict resolution. Still fairly complete for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets 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 files') and the resource ('files') with a specific context ('before an agent edits them so other agents do not patch the same SwiftUI/App files concurrently'). While it hints at the sibling tool 'release', it does not explicitly distinguish itself from all siblings, but the purpose is 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 explicitly tells when to use ('before editing shared files in parallel-agent work') and hints at when not to use ('release claims when done'). It provides clear context for usage, though it does not name alternative tools or scenarios to avoid, the sibling release tool is implied.

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