claim_next_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses atomic claim behavior, skips pre-assigned tasks, returns null if no eligible task, and notes the absence of history[] while directing to get_task. This is transparent about side effects and return values.

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 purpose, followed by relevant details. No wasted words and all information is actionable.

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's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects, return value, and points to get_task for additional detail. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema covers one parameter (assignee) with a clear description, and the description adds meaning for 'tag' by noting it is optional and filters eligible pending tasks. Both parameters are effectively documented, though the description could have explicitly mentioned the assignee parameter as well.

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 tool's function: 'Atomically claim the first eligible pending task' and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the alternative of a separate list_tasks + claim_task round trip. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'instead of a separate list_tasks + claim_task round trip', which provides clear context for when to use it over alternatives. It also points to get_task for retrieving history, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when a specific task ID is known).

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