claim_acquire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses atomicity, selector exclusivity, worktree isolation rules, dirty-checkout recovery outcomes, and legacy_outcome behavior. It omits authorization requirements and precise semantics of 'exclusive resources,' but the level of disclosure is well above minimal.

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 a dense but compact paragraph, front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary followed by necessary constraints and outcome details. Each sentence adds information, though the long outcome-code enumeration could be formatted as a list for easier scanning.

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 18 parameters, no annotations, and complex isolation semantics, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It fails to explain most parameter semantics, does not provide decision guidance for choosing acquisition modes, and leaves the agent with significant inference burden despite the output schema.

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 22%, and the description adds meaning for selectors like backlog, project_files, all_files, and scope_reason. However, required parameters including repository, claim_id, agent, task, and root_task_id are left unexplained, as are optional parameters like worktree_path, resources, parent_claim_id, and allow_recovery—requiring agents to infer meaning from names alone.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('acquire') and names the resource ('one file domain plus optional exclusive resources'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling claim_status, claim_extend, and claim_release tools. However, 'file domain' is undefined jargon, and the initial purpose statement leans on later text for clarification.

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 constraints on selector usage (mutual exclusivity, scope_reason required, primary-worktree-only), which implies when certain modes are appropriate. It does not explicitly state when to use claim_acquire versus alternatives like claim_extend or claim_status, nor does it name exclusions.

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