agenthold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only status check (implied by 'check'), describes the two possible response states with their meanings, and provides actionable next steps. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers the essential operational context.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each earn their place: purpose statement, usage context, and response interpretation. It's front-loaded with the core function and contains zero wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context: clear purpose, usage guidelines with sibling references, behavioral expectations, and response interpretation. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error case handling, but it's otherwise complete for this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'resource' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no additional examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('check if a resource is available or currently claimed') and identifies the resource type. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status checking rather than claiming, registering, releasing, or waiting.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to decide which resource to work on next when you have multiple options') and what to do based on the outcome (call agenthold_claim if available, work on different resource or call agenthold_wait if claimed). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives.

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