void_claim_node

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

Discloses that the amount is read from chain, can only be claimed once, and returns full collateral. Also describes the return as confirmation or error. Without annotations, this provides meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention fees or other potential side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded. It leads with the main action, then the usage condition, and ends with a clear Args section. No 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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the action, the condition, the return, and the argument semantics. It might be improved by explaining what happens if the contract isn't voided, but the error message mention covers this implicitly.

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 description includes an Args section explaining job_id as 'The Voided contract ID to reclaim collateral from,' which is absent from the schema. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives the parameter practical meaning.

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 'Reclaim your collateral from a Voided contract as the worker (Bob)' – a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like void_claim_requester by specifying the worker role and the eligibility condition.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this after a stale dispute was voided via void_dispute,' providing a clear precondition. It also indicates this is for the worker role, implying the requester should use a different tool, but it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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