td_scopes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It conveys that the tool is a non-mutating lookup ('check this before editing') and exposes claim ownership and expiry. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not edit anything, or describe any caveats such as staleness or permission requirements.

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: the first line defines exactly what the tool reports, and the second line gives actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned in substance, when to call it, and why it matters. It does not deeply discuss related scope-management tools or edge cases, but those are not necessary for basic correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with an empty properties object. There is no parameter semantics for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on output meaning rather than input details.

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 that the tool reports which subtrees other agents have claimed and until when, which is a specific and identifiable purpose. It implies a read-only listing operation and differentiates itself from sibling claim-management tools by focusing on viewing existing claims, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a concrete usage context: check this before editing a project someone else may be in. It also explains why it matters—it is the only way to see a claim before a write fails and it identifies the owner to coordinate with. It stops short of stating when not to use the tool or naming alternatives directly.

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