check_claim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the temporal scoping ('since your claim') and the diff output shape. However, it doesn't say what happens when no claim exists or what the diff looks like in edge cases, leaving gaps beyond the annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core behavior and the invocation trigger are both front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented parameter, and an existing output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to call it. Only minor edge-case behavior (no prior claim, empty diff) is missing, which is not essential for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `issue` parameter is fully documented in the schema with a format example (ENG-123 or UUID). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific check: whether the ticket description changed since the caller's claim, plus a line diff of the change. It's phrased as a question rather than a verb+resource statement, but an agent can identify the operation. It relates to the `claim` and `description_history` siblings without explicitly distinguishing itself from them.

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 timing guidance: 'Run before opening or merging a PR for the ticket.' This gives clear context for invocation. It does not name alternatives (e.g., description_history) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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