claim_automation_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It implies mutation ('Claim') but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or what happens if the key is already claimed. The behavior is under-specified.

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 extremely concise: one sentence, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and context. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the claimed key) and any behavioral nuances. It fails to cover return value, error conditions, or concurrency behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning but also does not need to. Baseline 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Claim') and resource ('key'), and hints at a distinct purpose from sibling tools (locking for irreversible work). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other automation state tools like put_automation_state or get_automation_state.

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 a clear context ('before doing irreversible work') but offers no guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternatives exist. It does not mention prerequisites or consequences of multiple claims.

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