claim_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of claiming, the restriction on claiming own tasks, and the authentication requirement. It does not describe success/failure responses or idempotency, but for a simple action tool, this is sufficient.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and followed by key constraints, making it highly readable and efficient.

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?

Given a single required parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and simple tool behavior, the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, and auth. It lacks return value details, but those may not be critical for agent usage.

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 100%, with the parameter 'task_id' described as 'The task ID to claim'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond referencing the task, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'claim' and the resource 'open task from the marketplace'. It also includes specific constraints (cannot claim own tasks) and authentication requirement, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse_tasks, create_task, and submit_deliverable.

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 a usage constraint ('You cannot claim your own tasks') and a prerequisite ('Requires keypair auth'), giving clear guidance on when not to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, but the purpose itself makes that clear.

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