docket_claim

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It explicitly states the behavioral effect: while claim is open, reads on that topic are refused. This goes beyond basic purpose to disclose a key constraint.

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 short sentences, each adding necessary information. Front-loaded with action ('Open an independence claim'). No redundancy or 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?

Given the simple tool (one param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use context, and behavioral impact. Missing details like error handling or idempotency, but overall complete enough for an AI agent.

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 0%, but the description adds minimal value: 'on a topic' confirms the parameter's role. For a single string parameter, this is adequate but does not enrich understanding beyond the schema name.

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 uses specific verb 'open' on resource 'claim on a topic', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like docket_release (release claim) and docket_post (post). It explicitly states the purpose: blocking reads to ensure independence.

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 tells when to use ('before verifying something independently') and when to stop ('release it after you post'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or cases when not to use, but the context is clear.

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