claim_acquire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: atomicity, project-files isolation under '.worktrees/<claim-id>', sparse-checkout omission of backlog, and preservation of 'outcomes, rejection fields, and exit codes.' However, it leaves many behavioral questions unanswered, such as conflict/locking behavior, side effects on existing claims, and actual exit-code semantics. The level of detail is moderate, not comprehensive.

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 a clear one-line purpose, followed by scope-specific details and a compatibility note. It is relatively compact, but the final sentence about 'Schema-version-2 results' is cryptic and adds more confusion than value. Overall structure is logical but could be clearer.

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 is highly complex (23 parameters, 5 required, no annotations), and the description does not cover essential invocation details like the meaning of required fields (repository, claim_id, agent, task, root_task_id), error outcomes, or how this relates to other claim operations. The presence of an output schema offsets the need to describe return values, but the input semantics are only partially explained. This is insufficient for confident invocation without further investigation.

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 17%, so the description must compensate for 23 parameters. It does clarify some parameter relationships, such as work_item_id with activity, and named resources requiring timing evidence against PROJECT.yaml. Yet most parameters (base, files, trees, branch, parent_claim_id, expected_duration_seconds, etc.) receive no explanation in either the schema or description. The description provides scope-level semantics but does not adequately cover the parameter space.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource types: 'Atomically acquire one work item, file domain, or timed resource.' This clearly distinguishes claim_acquire from sibling lifecycle tools like claim_report, claim_status, and claim_release. The scope details further refine what 'acquire' means in different modes.

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 context for when to use this tool by outlining three acquisition scopes (work-item, file domain, timed resource) and their prerequisites, such as 'complete timing evidence resolved against PROJECT.yaml.' However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like claim_extend or claim_release, nor state when NOT to use it. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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