void_claim_requester

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: returns full payment, amount read from chain, can only be claimed once, and dispute fee forfeited. It omits side effects on chain state beyond 'can only be claimed once', but this is adequately implied.

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 five sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by preconditions and details. No unnecessary words; efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers when to use, the parameter, and behavioral notes. Lacks mention of potential errors beyond 'error message' but adequate.

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%, but the description adds meaning to the single parameter job_id as 'The Voided contract ID to reclaim payment from', which is sufficient for understanding and use.

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 specific verb 'reclaim', resource 'payment from voided contract', and actor 'requester (Alice)'. It distinguishes from siblings like claim_funds and claim_after_timeout by targeting voided contracts and specifying the requester role.

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 explicitly states when to use ('after a stale dispute was voided via void_dispute') and notes that the dispute fee is forfeited, providing a clear constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings.

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