Atomically claim the highest-priority runnable task for a worker; leases stop concurrent agents from owning the same task tree.
Agent-loop primitive: atomically claim the highest-priority runnable task for this worker. Multiple model clients can call this concurrently; leases prevent two workers owning the same tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| workerId | No | ||
| workerRole | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: atomic claiming and lease-based concurrency protection preventing two workers from owning the same tree. It does not describe lease expiry or exactly what state changes on claim, but it adds real value.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by concurrency safety context. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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?
For a tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without guidance on what arguments to provide. It covers the purpose and concurrency behavior well, but the missing parameter semantics make it incomplete for correct invocation.
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?
There are 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain cwd, project, workerId, or workerRole. The phrase 'for this worker' loosely hints at workerId but provides no usable semantics for any parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'atomically claim the highest-priority runnable task for this worker.' It clearly distinguishes the core action from generic task listing or status tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like task_claim or task_ready.
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?
It labels itself an 'Agent-loop primitive' and mentions concurrent callers, which implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing it over task_claim or task_ready, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.