bus_claim_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important behavioral traits: exclusivity of the claim and a 15-minute lease, plus the failure mode when contended. It does not say what happens when the lease expires mid-work, whether the lease is renewable, or what the tool returns on success vs failure.

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, front-loaded with the action and the exclusivity constraint, then the failure condition. No filler and nothing buried.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description covers the lease and contention behavior well but leaves parameter meaning and post-claim lifecycle (renewal, expiry, release) unexplained. Adequate minimum, but clear gaps for a state-changing tool.

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 never mentions either parameter. An agent must guess that 'id' is the task identifier and 'agent' is the claiming agent's identity string, and gets no hint about whether 'agent' must match a registered identity from bus_register.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Claim a queued task') and adds the defining scope qualifier 'exclusively', which separates it from sibling read tools like bus_list_tasks and follow-on actions like bus_complete_task. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, so sibling routing is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Fails if another agent holds it' gives the agent a clear precondition to check before calling, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. vs bus_approve_task or bus_list_tasks), and no guidance on what to do after a failed claim.

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