claim_pickup

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the side effect of marking claimed by cid and detailing the auto_spawn child spawning behavior. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description provides necessary behavioral context. No contradiction.

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 concise (4 lines), front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently covers the core action, the side effect, and the optional spawn behavior.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, one required, and an output schema (not shown), the description provides adequate coverage of the main behavior and key parameters. It lacks details on return values (but output schema likely covers that) and error conditions, but overall it is fairly complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains auto_spawn and spawn_role but does not mention the required thread_id or the plan parameter, leaving them undocumented. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 'thread', and specifies 'for self-initiated work', which distinguishes it from other thread tools like open_thread or close_thread. It also notes it marks claimed by cid, 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 explains the auto_spawn and spawn_role behavior, which implicitly guides when to use these options, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like release_pickup or other claim tools. No 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings is provided.

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