claim_lane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: conflict handling (409 with ok=False), lease clamping, and backward compatibility with older servers. It warns about checking the effective lease_s rather than assuming the requested value.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and is structurally sound. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value, covering modes, conflict, lease clamping, and version info.

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 complexity, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: behavior, edge cases (409, older servers), and guidance for checking effective lease_s. It is complete for correct selection and 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the lease_s parameter's behavior (requested vs. effective) and implies the meanings of lane and owner through context. It does not explicitly describe lane and owner, but the usage context is sufficient for understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Claim a coordination lane before starting work in it.' It lists three specific modes (claim-if-free, steal-if-lease-expired, renew-if-you-already-own-it), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like release_lane and heartbeat_lane.

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 provides clear context on when to use (before starting work) and references get_bus_status for checking the ceiling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare directly with siblings, though the behavior is well-defined.

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