claim_next_finding_for_verification

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

The description discloses behavior the annotations don't cover: the calling actor is implicitly assigned the 'verifier' role for the claim duration, and the empty-queue return is named. Annotations only give the mutation safety profile, so this added context is valuable. It stops short of explaining claim release/expiry.

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, scope front-loaded, no filler. Every clause conveys distinct, useful information.

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 non-readonly claim mutation with no output schema, the description covers role assignment and the empty-queue case, but leaves the as_agent parameter and the claim lifecycle (expiry, release) unexplained, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 document both parameters. It implies PlanId via 'on the plan' but says nothing about 'as_agent', leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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) and resource (highest-severity pending-verification finding) scoped to the audit plan. The 'verification' qualifier distinguishes it from siblings like claim_next_finding_for_fix and claim_next_attempt_for_review, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 a clear precondition, and 'Returns no_work_available if no findings are waiting' tells the agent what to expect when the queue is empty. It lacks an explicit pointer to the alternative claim tools, keeping it short of a 5.

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