task_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and excels. It discloses the lock mechanism (60 min default, 24h max, renewal on re-claim), the 409 error behavior, the effect of `force`, and the semantics of `release`. It also explains the agent_name requirement. This goes far beyond a typical description and gives the agent complete behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured: a punchy first sentence states the core idea, followed by a compact paragraph of critical mechanics. Every sentence adds value—lock behavior, 409 handling, force guidance, and release—without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 medium complexity (8 params, 3 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: when to claim, lock semantics, error handling, force usage, and release behavior. It provides enough context for an agent to safely and effectively invoke the tool without needing to inspect siblings or infer undocumented behavior.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 is warranted. The description adds meaningful context for key parameters: lock_minutes (default 60, max 1440), force (only when holder gone), release (hand back), and agent_name (required for meaningful claims). This elevates it above baseline but the schema already describes each parameter well, so it doesn't reach 5.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Claim a task before you start it — a lock plus assignment.' It specifies the resource (task) and the verb (claim), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the claiming/locking workflow rather than creation or completion. The behavioral details (set to in_progress, assign, lock) reinforce the purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Claim deliberately: prefer tasks already assigned to you or unassigned, and never silently take another agent's live claim.' It also states when to use `force` ('only when the holder is clearly gone') and when not to (expired locks are claimable without it). The description covers both appropriate context and exclusions clearly.

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