axint.agent.claim

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: claims are local, short-lived, stored in .axint/coordination/claims.json, and involve no network. This adds substantial value beyond the minimal annotations (all false), making the tool's effects clear.

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, each earning its place: purpose, usage, effects. It is front-loaded and concise with no redundancy.

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's complexity (coordination with TTL, file claims) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers when to use, what it does, file system impact, and local-only operation. Complete for its purpose.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds overarching context by linking parameters to the 'claim files before editing' workflow, though it does not provide per-parameter enhancements beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Claim files before an agent edits them so other agents do not patch the same SwiftUI/App files concurrently.' It uses a specific verb ('claim') and resource ('files'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on concurrency prevention.

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 explicit usage context: 'use before editing shared files in parallel-agent work; release claims when done.' It implies the lifecycle but does not explicitly name alternatives like the sibling tool axint.agent.release.

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