ai-claim_work_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only discloses the state transition but omits details like error handling (e.g., if item is already claimed), idempotency, required permissions, or success/failure output. This leaves agents uncertain about edge cases.

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?

Two short sentences convey the essential purpose and usage without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 description covers the primary function and state change, but lacks details on error behavior, success indicators, and prerequisites (e.g., item must be pending). Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'work_item_id'. The description adds no extra information about the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the action ('Claims'), the resource ('work item'), and the state transition ('pending → processing'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ai-complete_work_item' and 'ai-cancel_work_item' by focusing on the claiming step.

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 says 'Call this before starting to process a work item,' providing temporal guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if claiming is already done) or differentiate from the combined 'ai-claim_and_complete_work_item' sibling.

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