rlm_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: claims are exclusive and auto-expire. However, it omits other important traits such as whether claims can be renewed, what happens on conflict, required permissions, or the response format. The description provides basic but incomplete transparency.

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?

The description is very concise—two sentences covering the core purpose and the auto-expire behavior. There is no wasted text. However, it is perhaps too terse, leaving out important details that could be included without harming conciseness.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return value, error states, how to release or renew a claim, and how the timeout interacts with the claim lifecycle. The agent lacks crucial information for correct invocation.

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 only 20% (only resource_id has a description). The tool's description does not add meaning for the other parameters (swarm_id, agent_id, timeout_seconds, resource_type). It does not clarify the role of 'timeout_seconds' or the expected format of 'agent_id'. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'claim', the resource type ('exclusive access to a resource'), and lists example resources (file, function, module). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'rlm_release' and 'rlm_request_access' implicitly, but could be more explicit about when to use this over alternatives.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rlm_request_access' or 'rlm_release'. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for successful claims, or how to avoid conflicts. The agent is left to infer usage from the brief description.

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