claims_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the 'live' scope, all optional filtering behavior, and supplies useful edge-case semantics for limit: '0 means NO rows; a negative value is an error (it used to mean no limit)'. It doesn't discuss ordering or pagination, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a bulleted Args list. Every line adds useful information, including examples and an important edge-case note, with no filler.

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 read-only list tool with four optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the filters, defaults, and limit edge cases. The output schema covers return values, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: kind, holder, holder_kind, and limit, including defaults and the non-obvious zero/negative-value behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare type/default data in the input schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List live claims', and immediately names the three available filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like claims_claim, claims_release, claims_who_holds, and claims_held_by, which are about claiming, releasing, or querying holders rather than listing claims.

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 establishes clear context: this tool lists claims and can narrow results by kind, holder, or holder kind. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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