rlm_task_claim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses the fallback behavior but omits important details such as failure modes, effects of invalid swarm_id or agent_id, side effects, or whether the claim is idempotent. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long and immediately conveys the core purpose and key fallback behavior. However, it could include more essential details without becoming verbose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required parameters (swarm_id, agent_id), return values, error handling, or relationship to the sibling rlm_claim tool. The agent would lack critical context to use the tool 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?

With 4 parameters and only 25% schema description coverage, the description adds value only for task_id by explaining its optionality and fallback. The other parameters (swarm_id, agent_id, timeout_seconds) remain undocumented, and the description does not compensate for their lack of schema descriptions.

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 it is a compatibility alias that claims a canonical HierarchicalTask task, and specifies that omitting task_id claims the highest-priority available task. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rlm_task_complete or rlm_task_create by focusing on claiming behavior.

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 implies usage by noting the fallback behavior when task_id is omitted, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rlm_claim or other claim-related tools. The 'compatibility alias' hint is indirect guidance.

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