get_active_claims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the tool as a query operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, non-destructive, or mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is concise and uses no extraneous words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for purpose, usage, and output). Overall it is effective.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools like claim_files, the description provides adequate context for a basic query tool. However, it lacks details on the return format, pagination, or limits, and does not explain out-of-scope behaviors like what 'active' means precisely or whether results are sorted.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'Query who is currently working on what' and specifies it returns active file claims, distinguishing it from siblings like claim_files (which create claims) and release_files. It directly conveys the tool's purpose and resource.

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 mentions it is 'useful for orchestrator agents deciding what to delegate,' implying a use case, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for situations like creating or releasing claims. More explicit guidance would improve this.

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