claim_next_finding_for_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the side effect ('sets the finding status to in_fix as part of the claim transaction') and the implicit role assignment ('Caller is implicitly the fixer'). It omits edge behavior such as what happens when no eligible finding exists, locking/exclusivity, and whether the claim must later be released.

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 sentences, no waste, and the 'Audit-plan-only' scope constraint is front-loaded. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

No annotations or output schema exist, so the description must carry more. It adequately explains the claim semantics and the in_fix state transition, but leaves parameters undocumented and omits failure/empty-queue behavior, so it is not fully complete for a bare 2-param mutation tool.

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 neither of the two parameters is documented in the description. 'Audit-plan-only' loosely implies PlanId is an audit-plan identifier, but as_agent is entirely unexplained and the connection to the implicit 'fixer' role is not made explicit.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('claim the highest-severity confirmed... finding to fix') and adds scope ('Audit-plan-only'). The 'to fix' framing implicitly separates it from claim_next_finding_for_verification, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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' is a clear precondition, and the finding-selection criteria ('confirmed or below-cap fix_failed/partial, highest-severity') give context. However, it never states when to prefer this over claim_next_finding_for_verification or the release/refresh claim tools, leaving the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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