claim_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: overlapping claims are rejected with the conflicting party named, repeated claims renew the TTL, and non-overlapping claims are retained. It does not mention TTL duration or explicit release requirements, but the core state-changing behavior is well covered.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then explains conflict/renewal behavior, and ends with a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy 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?

Given there are no annotations and there is meaningful behavioral complexity, the description is largely complete: it covers claiming semantics, conflict rejection, renewal, TTL reset, and file format. Minor gaps include the undocumented optional project parameter and the lack of explicit guidance to use release_claim when done, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful descriptions for agent, task, and files, including a comma-separated format example. The optional project parameter is not explained, which prevents a perfect score.

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 defines claim_files as a declaration of identity, task, and target files: '声明我是谁、我在做什么、我要动哪些文件'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like release_claim and check_conflict by specifying the claim operation and its resource (files).

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 gives clear context for when this tool is used: to claim files before working on them, with conflict rejection if other terminals already hold overlapping claims. It also explains renewal behavior for repeated claims by the same agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is evident.

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