Claim Task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses file movement, frontmatter mutation, and the v2 no-op behavior. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the task is already claimed, so not a 5.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the core transition, the second explains the mechanism and the v2 caveat. No repeated information, no filler.

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?

For a state-transition tool with a complete schema and output schema available, the description covers what happens, where files move, and the version exception. It could add explicit guidance on choosing this over create_task/archive_task/finish_task, but nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (actor with default 'agent'; task_id with example format). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('claim') and a precise resource transition ('inbox → active'), then details the concrete mechanics: moving the file from '_lifecycle/inbox/' to '_lifecycle/active/' and appending a transition event to frontmatter. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling lifecycle tools like archive_task or finish_task.

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 v3 lifecycle framing gives clear context for when the tool applies, and the v2 no-op note gives an explicit exclusion condition. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating 'use this instead of X', so it doesn't earn a 5.

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