ecash_reclaim_expired

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the precondition (expired, no work) but doesn't describe the effects of the reclaim, such as whether it's reversible or what happens if called on a non-expired job. This is a significant gap for a financial operation.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and information-dense, with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and condition efficiently.

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?

The tool has one well-described parameter and no output schema. The description tells the purpose and condition but omits return value or error behavior, which is important for a financial operation. Given the simple interface, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 fully describes the only parameter (jobId), and the description aligns with the schema's own description. There is no additional semantic meaning provided beyond what the schema already gives, so 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?

Clearly states the action (reclaim), the resource (ECASH), and the condition (expired job with no work submitted). This distinguishes it from siblings like ecash_accept_job or ecash_submit_work, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies the exact context for use: an expired job where no work was submitted. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the condition is a clear trigger for when to invoke this tool. It could benefit from stating when NOT to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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