surety__file_claim

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the critical condition that claims pay out only when upheld by ruling. It doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like side effects or permissions.

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 a single sentence with important context. It is concise but could be better structured with separate usage notes.

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?

With no parameter explanations, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. For a tool with four parameters, it fails to guide correct 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?

The description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (bond_id, claimant, amount_minor, reason). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value.

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 'File a claim against an ACTIVE bond' and explains the conditional payout upon arbitration ruling, distinguishing it from slash_bond.

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 specifies the tool is for active bonds and links to slash_bond for the enforcement step. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like arbitration__file_case.

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