cos_task_claim_next

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

The description adds the atomicity of the claim and the null result behavior, which goes beyond the annotations that only state readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint are false. However, it does not disclose side effects on task state, locking, or what happens if the claim fails, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and a key edge case (claimed=null) economically, though the parenthetical is somewhat cryptic without further 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?

Given the tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks any parameter rationale, return value details beyond null, and does not mention how 'top' is determined or how session context influences the claim.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters: swimlane, priority_min, and agent_session. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no value in clarifying their semantics, defaults, or how they affect the claim selection.

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 tool atomically selects and claims the top runnable task for the current session, with an explicit null return when none exists. It uses a specific verb phrase and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cos_task_pick or cos_task_reclaim.

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 implies usage for claiming the next task but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. No mention of when not to use it or how it differs from similar claim-related tools.

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