claim_report

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

Despite having no annotations, the description proactively discloses that the tool is non-mutating ('without creating or migrating absent state'), which is valuable behavioral context. It does not go further into auth or rate limits, but for a report tool this safety guarantee is a strong addition.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and a key behavioral qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered, and the description gives a clear purpose and non-mutation guarantee. However, terms like 'canonical contention metrics' and 'absent state' are jargon-laden, and usage guidance relative to siblings (e.g., claim_status) is missing, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to fully understand when and how to use it.

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 offers no explanation of the 'since' or 'repository' parameters. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the default '2d' and the relationship to reporting metrics are left ambiguous, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Report' with a clear object 'canonical contention metrics', immediately distinguishing it from other claim_* tools that acquire, extend, release, or reset claims. It also explicitly states what it does not do ('without creating or migrating absent state'), further clarifying its scope.

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 implies the tool is for reporting contention metrics rather than modifying state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like claim_status or claim_acquire. No when-to-use or exclusion criteria are given, so the guidance is only implicit.

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