surety__file_claim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that claims pay out only after an arbitration ruling and references slash_bond, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or post-filing behavior. Moderate transparency.

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?

A single concise sentence with a context prefix. Every word adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with important context.

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?

The description captures core logic (claim filing with arbitration dependency) but lacks parameter details, output behavior (no output schema), and full process explanation. Partially complete for a moderate-complexity tool.

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%, yet the description provides no explanations for any of the four parameters (bond_id, claimant, amount_minor, reason). The agent must infer from names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 verb 'file a claim' against a specific resource 'active bond'. It distinguishes from sibling tool slash_bond by noting the arbitration-ruling dependency and includes context 'bonding + ruling-gated slashing'.

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 says when to use (file a claim against an active bond) and implies when not to (use slash_bond for enforcement after ruling). It provides clear context but lacks explicit 'when not to' or alternatives beyond the reference.

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