claim_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and 'authoritative live' adds context that it reflects current state. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, error behavior, or access requirements, so some transparency is missing.

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 with no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning: 'Return', 'authoritative', 'live', 'claim registry', 'one Git repository'.

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 simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return value documentation is not needed. However, the description lacks usage context and behavioral nuance, especially given the large sibling toolset. It is functional but not fully complete.

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?

The single parameter 'repository' is given semantic meaning by the phrase 'one Git repository', clarifying that the value identifies a repository. However, the description does not specify the expected format (e.g., path, URL, or name), leaving the agent with partial guidance.

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 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: 'authoritative live claim registry' for 'one Git repository'. This distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings like claim_acquire and claim_release, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as claim_report or skill_find. It does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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