claims_held_by

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Everything' and 'currently holds' convey complete, current-state read semantics, which is useful, but there is no mention of edge cases, ordering, permissions, or how any errors or empty results are handled.

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 six words long, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to the basic meaning.

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 is low-complexity and has an output schema, but the description still leaves key context ambiguous. It does not clarify the holder value format or distinguish this tool from closely related claim tools, so an agent may not be able to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 schema has one required holder parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description only echoes the word 'holder' without adding real semantics. It does not explain whether holder is a name, ID, username, or how to handle an unknown holder.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving everything a given holder currently holds, which is understandable in the claims domain. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools like claims_who_holds or claims_list, but the core resource and scope are evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as claims_who_holds, claims_list, or codemerge_claims. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name and one-line description.

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