Claim a task

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical context beyond them: the claim is exclusive escrow, it is signed with this server's account key (BRICK_BLUE_KEY_FILE), the key is created on first use and must be backed up, and the operation involves waiting. That is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose (escrowed work, you get paid) and then flows into mode selection, lifecycle routing, and return value. It is dense but every sentence carries information; only the key-backup aside sits slightly off the main thread, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explicitly tells the agent what is returned (JSON with the task, its criteria, and the claimToken needed by submit_result). Combined with the lifecycle guidance and key/signing context, an agent has everything needed to call and follow through 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the with/without-taskId semantics and the optional wait, but adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (claim) and resource (task), and it explicitly states the escrow/payment exclusivity that distinguishes it from list_tasks/get_task. An agent knows immediately this is the commitment step, not a browse or read operation.

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 ordering: 'Use after list_tasks/get_task; deliver with submit_result or hand back with fail_task.' It also explains the two claim modes (with/without taskId) and the optional 30 s wait, so when to use this versus alternatives is fully resolved.

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