claim_extend_deadline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and a vague evidence bound. It does not mention whether this mutates state, what 'bounded' means, what permissions are needed, or any failure modes.

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 single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and target, with no filler. It is concise, though the terseness contributes to missing critical guidance.

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 a tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and a sibling tool named claim_extend, this description leaves major gaps in usage differentiation and behavioral context. The existing output schema does not compensate for the missing parameter and usage information.

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, but it does not explicitly map any of the four parameters. It offers vague conceptual hints ('bounded evidence', 'hard stop') but fails to clarify claim_id, repository, requested_hard_stop_duration_seconds, or extension_evidence.

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 ('Extend') and identifies the resource ('configured resource hard stop') and a constraint ('bounded evidence'), making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool claim_extend, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like claim_extend. The phrase 'bounded evidence' hints at a requirement, but no explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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