claim_pickup

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

The description explains the claiming action and auto-spawn behavior, but lacks details on preconditions (e.g., thread must exist and be unclaimed), error handling, or whether it is safe to call multiple times. Annotations are absent, so the description should compensate more.

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?

Three sentences: first clearly states purpose, second and third explain key parameters. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 purpose and key behavior but is incomplete for a mutation tool. Missing prerequisites (thread existence, ownership), side effects (overwriting claims), and error conditions. Output schema exists, so return values are covered.

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 description coverage, the description explains 'thread_id' (implied), 'auto_spawn' (behavior), and 'spawn_role' (default to executor). 'plan' is mentioned in context but not fully defined. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 for self-initiated work', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'release_pickup' and 'open_thread'. The mention of 'auto_spawn' further differentiates its functionality.

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 implies usage for claiming a thread to work on, with optional auto-spawn, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'open_thread' or 'release_pickup'. No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.

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