claim_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the critical safety trait of not mutating the live registry, which is the most important behavioral disclosure. It does not detail error conditions or other side effects, but this is a simple report tool.

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 concise sentence that earns its place without wordiness. It front-loads the action and object while adding a key qualifier.

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?

An output schema exists to cover return values, but parameter semantics and usage guidance are thin. The tool is simple and the description is minimally viable, but clear gaps remain in explaining inputs and sibling relationships.

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 does not explain either parameter. 'since' with a default of '2d' is ambiguous, and 'repository' is not elaborated. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond parameter names.

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') and a clear resource ('claim contention and lifecycle metrics'), and explicitly adds 'without mutating the live registry' to distinguish it from mutation-focused siblings like claim_acquire and claim_release.

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 non-mutating phrase implies this is for read-only reporting, but it does not explicitly contrast with claim_status or provide when-to-use/alternatives. Usage is implied rather than clearly directed.

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