tb_recover_claims

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal one meaningful behavior—recovered tasks are not automatically requeued—but it does not explain what happens to expired attempts, whether the operation is idempotent, or what failure modes exist.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded, and free of filler. Its brevity is effective, though it is compact at the expense of needed operational detail for such a complex tool.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, 7 required fields, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only two sentences. It fails to explain return values, prerequisites, side effects, or how the required parameters relate to the recovery operation.

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 mentions none of the 10 parameters. It does not add meaning to fields like expected_board_revision, attempt_ids, limit, or the nested capability object, leaving the schema names to carry all semantic weight.

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 ('Recover') and a precise resource ('expired direct-v1 attempts'), making the tool's scope clear. It also distinguishes itself from nearby sibling tools like tb_requeue by stating that tasks require explicit requeue afterward.

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 phrase 'expired direct-v1 attempts' gives a clear target condition, and 'require explicit requeue afterward' implies this tool is not a substitute for requeue. However, it never explicitly names alternatives, states when not to use it, or explains the intended workflow relative to siblings like tb_requeue or tb_claim.

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