get_my_active_work

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: that the scope spans every plan and covers three claim categories, and that the intended behavior is state recovery after a restart. It does not say what the claims look like on return or whether the caller must re-acquire/refresh them afterward.

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: the first defines the returned content, the second defines the use case. Front-loaded with the payload scope and no filler.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and why. The remaining gap is the undocumented as_agent override, plus no hint about whether returned claims include the IDs needed to release or refresh them.

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 carries the full burden for as_agent, yet the parameter is never mentioned. The phrase 'the calling actor' implies an implicit identity, but an agent cannot tell whether as_agent overrides that identity, what format it expects, or why it would be set.

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 retrieval: 'Every active claim the calling actor currently holds across every plan,' and enumerates exactly which claim types are returned (tasks, findings, attempts in review). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling claim_next_* and get_stuck_work tools, which acquire or diagnose rather than enumerate the caller's own holdings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this on session start to recover claims after a Claude restart.' That is a clear when-to-use signal an agent can act on. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_stuck_work or refresh_claim) or stating when this tool is not the right choice.

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