claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses atomicity, collision-freedom, and formatted return but omits details on error handling, side effects (e.g., whether the sequence must pre-exist), or response structure beyond 'formatted id'.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action and key properties. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers core behavior but leaves gaps: no clarification on what 'formatted id' looks like, no mention of the optional 'note' parameter, and no error scenarios. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain the 'sequence' constraints (minLength, pattern) or the 'note' parameter's purpose, leaving the agent without additional semantic meaning beyond raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool atomically allocates the next number for a sequence, uses a specific verb 'allocate', and gives an example use case (ADR/migration). It distinguishes from siblings by claiming to be 'the sole source of the number', implying uniqueness compared to tools like 'seed_sequence' or 'latest_claims'.

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 some usage context via the example and emphasizes collision-free allocation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lease', 'register', or 'ack'. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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