tb_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states a precondition. It fails to explain the side effects of claiming, lease semantics (lease_seconds), conflict behavior, idempotency guarantees, revision checks, or the need for subsequent heartbeats—all significant for a state-changing operation.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key precondition. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or 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 an 8-parameter, state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It covers the initial eligibility rule but omits important invocation context such as lease handling, idempotency behavior, expected_revision semantics, and what happens after a successful 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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate, but it adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify lease_seconds, idempotency_key, expected_revision, coordination_mode, or api_version, which are otherwise undocumented in the 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 uses a specific verb ('Claim') and resource ('task for execution'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tb_add_task or tb_status. The additional precondition ('only tasks in ready status with all dependencies resolved') further sharpens the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance by restricting claims to tasks in 'ready' status with all dependencies resolved. It implies when-not-to-use but does not name alternatives such as tb_set_dependencies for unfinished dependencies or tb_heartbeat for maintaining an existing claim.

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