report_intent

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: the call is non-blocking, so it never gates the caller. It also states what comes back (overlaps with other agents' claims and intents). Gaps remain on claim lifetime, whether a follow-up release is required, and idempotency on repeat calls.

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?

A single sentence with the key constraint '(no blocking)' front-loaded, so the reader gets the important qualifier immediately. It is efficient, though the line break mid-sentence and the dense trailing clause slightly hurt readability.

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 three-required-parameter tool with zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description should explain the parameter contract and the shape of the overlap response. It covers the return concept and the non-blocking nature but leaves the parameter semantics and the claim's lifecycle undefined.

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% across three required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'What you PLAN to touch' loosely maps to expected_scopes, but task_id and plan_summary are never explained, nor is the expected string format of a scope (path, module, resource id?), which is exactly what an agent would get wrong.

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 concrete action (records an intent claim) and a concrete outcome (returns overlaps with other agents' claims), which is far more than the bare name conveys. The parenthetical '(no blocking)' implicitly separates it from the blocking 'claim' sibling, but no sibling is named outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 trailing clause 'so overlapping tasks can be serialized before work starts' implies the moment to call it (pre-work declaration), which is useful but indirect. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as claim/release/check, leaving the agent to guess which coordination tool to reach for.

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