claim_status

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. It does disclose one key trait: it does not create absent state, which is a side-effect guarantee. However, it omits other important behaviors such as permissions, failure modes, or what 'structured migration stop' entails, leaving significant gaps.

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 with no filler words, making it concise. However, the dense jargon and ambiguous phrasing reduce accessibility, though it still earns a high score for not wasting words.

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?

Despite having an output schema that covers return values, the description is too terse to explain specialized domain concepts like 'primary-root claim state' or 'migration stop.' For a tool with niche terminology and a single parameter, more context is needed to make the tool actionable.

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 schema defines one parameter 'repository' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but fails to explain what 'repository' refers to, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.

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 identifies a clear query action ('Return') targeting a specific resource ('primary-root claim state' or 'structured migration stop'), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like claim_acquire and claim_release. However, the terms 'primary-root' and 'migration stop' are domain jargon that are not explained, slightly obscuring the tool's purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without creating absent state' implies a safe read operation, but there is no mention of choosing it over claim_report or any exclusionary context.

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