federation_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: the call blocks until timeout, and it returns either a structured brief {task_id, claim_token, role, advisor_dir, question} or an empty result. The claim_token strongly implies an exclusive lease. It omits auth requirements, retry/backoff semantics, and what an empty result should trigger.

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?

Two dense sentences front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return shape and the next-step instruction. Arrow notation keeps it compact, though the telegraphic style sacrifices some readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the return payload is valuable and the description does it. But for a 3-parameter blocking worker-loop tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema descriptions, the missing parameter meanings and failure/empty handling leave meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never explains worker_id, roles, or timeout individually. 'Blocking until timeout' hints at the timeout parameter's effect, but the required worker_id and the roles filter are left entirely to the schema's type declarations, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: the executor claims a role-task ('Исполнитель забирает роль-таск'), and it distinguishes this from the downstream federation_submit that follows. It is clearly a claim/lease operation rather than the submit, assemble, or poll siblings. The non-English text is a minor accessibility cost but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It implies a workflow: claim a task, play advisor_dir on your own model, cite quotes, then call federation_submit. That sequencing gives usable context, but it never states when NOT to use this tool, nor contrasts it with close siblings like federation_poll or federation_open. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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