claim_next_finding_for_verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: severity-ordered selection, implicit assignment of the 'verifier' role for the claim duration, and an explicit empty-result sentinel. It omits the claim lifecycle (lease/expiry, how the claim is released, whether refresh_claim applies) and any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded: scope claim, actor-role behavior, and failure mode. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Covers selection policy, role assignment, and the empty case, which is a lot for a claim tool with no output schema. However, an agent still cannot determine the claim's duration, how to release or refresh it, or what as_agent does, which are material gaps for a state-mutating claim.

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% for both parameters. The description implies PlanId via 'on the plan', but 'as_agent' is never explained, and it is unclear whether it overrides the implicit actor-role assignment described in the text. With zero schema-level documentation, the description should compensate and does not.

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), a precisely bounded resource (highest-severity pending-verification finding), and a scope qualifier (audit-plan-only). This cleanly separates it from the close siblings claim_next_finding_for_fix and claim_next_attempt_for_review without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

The 'Audit-plan-only' qualifier and 'pending-verification' condition tell the agent exactly which context this applies to, and the no_work_available outcome signals when there is nothing to claim. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use when no verification work exists.

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