coordination_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'view', implying read-only, but does not explicitly state if it is safe, what side effects occur, or any costs. No mention of authentication, rate limits, or how conflicts are determined.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no fluff, though it could benefit from slight expansion to cover usage without losing conciseness.

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 that there is no output schema and only one parameter without explanation of its variants, the description is insufficiently complete. It tells what the tool does but omits how to interpret responses (e.g., what 'stale claims' means) and lacks guidance on parameter choices.

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% for the single parameter 'profile', so the schema already defines it. The description adds no additional meaning about the profile values (compact, balanced, debug) or when to use each, so it adds no value beyond schema.

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 'Fleet-wide claim view' specifying the verb (view) and resource (claims). It distinguishes from siblings like agent_claim (individual claims) by indicating the scope is fleet-wide and includes active claims, stale claims, and conflicts.

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 an overview of claims but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Among siblings, no comparative advice is given.

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