claim_next_attempt_for_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the surface is inert in v1. However, it never says what happens if an agent calls it anyway (error, empty result, no-op), and it does not reconcile that with the schema still requiring PlanId. The mutation/claim semantics of a real version are left unspecified.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the reserved/future status is front-loaded, followed by the v1 routing rationale. Nothing is wasted, though it could have used its length to cover the required parameter instead.

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 an inert placeholder with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys enough that an agent should not rely on it. But the required PlanId and as_agent parameters are unexplained, and there is no statement of call behavior, leaving a real gap for anyone who invokes it by name.

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 mentions neither PlanId (required) nor as_agent. It references 'the attempt id', which is not even a parameter of this tool, so it actively fails to explain the two parameters the agent must supply.

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 names the resource (a reserved claim surface for the fix-verifier / dev-reviewer queue) and explicitly frames it as a future/placeholder tool. It also names the sibling tools (submit_attempt_verdict / submit_review_decision) that supersede it in v1, so an agent can distinguish it. It stops short of a 5 because it never states what the tool would actually return or do if invoked.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance: no separate claim is needed in v1 because the verdict tools accept the attempt id directly from orchestrator state. That is a clear routing instruction. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' call-to-action and gives no condition under which this tool would ever be the right choice.

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