hub_claim_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares "Pure read" (safety profile), discloses the soft-lock semantics ("this informs, it does not forbid"), and tells the agent the resulting obligation is to coordinate with the holder. It also enumerates the response fields and what `mine` and `unmatchable` mean, which is behavioral context beyond any structured field.

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 operative instruction ("Before editing a file") is front-loaded, and the return-field enumeration earns its place because no output schema exists. It is dense but largely waste-free; the parenthetical clarifications add precision rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does, naming free, holders, mine, and unmatchable. Combined with the read-only and soft-lock disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly before an edit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description rises above it by explaining the effect of `agent` (own claims reported as `mine`, not as holders) and the semantics of `unmatchable` relative to the project, tying parameters to output meaning rather than merely restating the schema.

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 verb and resource (check whether a file is inside a live claim), scoped to a file path, and frames it as a pre-edit interrogation. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling hub_claim (which creates claims), and it even previews the return shape, so an agent needs no schema peek to know what this does.

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?

"Before editing a file" gives an explicit trigger condition that tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. It stops short of naming the alternative or an explicit when-not, but the timing and coordinate-with-holder guidance make the intent unambiguous.

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