claim_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it states that claims persist across sessions, are re-checked, and that the proof command must be cheap and read-only so its output can be compared. It does not describe failure modes or notification mechanics, but it discloses the core side-effecting behavior and constraints.

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 with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a key constraint. Nothing repeats the schema verbatim.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to cover purpose, selection context, and behavioral constraints, which it does. It omits explicit return-value and error information, but an agent still has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value by constraining verified_by to be a cheap read-only shell command and explaining how its output is compared. It also grounds asserted_in in durable locations, though expect and watches are left to the 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 opens with a concrete verb and object: record a claim together with the proving command, and clarifies that the claim will be monitored in later sessions. It clearly differentiates the tool from session management siblings and implies the counterpart relationship with claim_check.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: for any factual statement written in a durable artifact such as a PR description, code comment, doc, or status report. It does not name alternatives directly or list exclusions, but the sibling context and the 'Use this for' phrasing make the intended scope clear.

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