claim_next_attempt_for_review

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds that the tool is reserved and unnecessary in v1. However, it does not state what happens if the tool is called now (no-op, error, or future behavior), leaving a behavioral gap.

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?

Two concise sentences with the key constraint stated first. There is no wasted text.

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 reserved tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains why it should not be used in v1. However, it omits parameter meaning and what calling the tool would actually do, which are relevant gaps even for a placeholder.

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 does not explain PlanId or as_agent at all. Parameter names offer minimal meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 that this is a reserved tool surface for a future queue and that it is not needed in v1. It distinguishes itself from the verdict siblings by explaining that they accept the attempt id directly, though it does not describe an actionable purpose because none currently exists.

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?

It explicitly says no separate claim is needed in v1 and names the alternatives (submit_attempt_verdict and submit_review_decision) that use the attempt id from orchestrator working state. This gives the agent a clear condition for avoiding this tool.

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