claim_next_finding_for_fix

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

Annotations only cover the safety triad; the description adds two things they don't: the claim mutates state by setting the finding to in_fix, and the caller implicitly becomes the fixer. It omits what happens when no eligible finding exists and whether the claim has a lease/expiry (refresh_claim and release_claim in the sibling list suggest one exists).

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?

Three tight sentences, with the plan-scope constraint and the selection rule front-loaded before the side-effect disclosure. No filler, though 'below-cap fix_failed/partial' is compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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 no output schema and a mutation tool with two undocumented parameters, key facts are missing: the return payload (does it return the finding or just a confirmation?), behavior when no claimable finding exists, the meaning of 'below-cap', and any claim lease/TTL. A claim tool that silently changes status needs at least the failure mode documented.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and does not. PlanId is only obliquely implied by 'Audit-plan-only', and as_agent is never mentioned at all — notably it appears to conflict with 'Caller is implicitly the fixer', leaving the agent unsure how to attribute the claim.

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?

States a specific verb (claim), the exact resource (a finding), and the selection rule (highest-severity confirmed, or below-cap fix_failed/partial). The 'for_fix' scope plus the selection predicate clearly separates it from claim_next_finding_for_verification.

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?

'Audit-plan-only' sets the applicability constraint up front and 'to fix' implies the alternative (verification) is a different tool. It never explicitly names claim_specific_task or claim_next_finding_for_verification as the alternatives, so routing is inferred from names rather than stated.

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