assign_open_loop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the critical contention rules: first claim wins, re-claim by the same owner is a no-op, and claiming another owner's loop raises an error with the current owner in the message. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line core rule, followed by the essential behavioral details, then a clear return format. Every sentence conveys meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

For a concurrency-sensitive mutation tool, the description provides the key rules, error behavior, and return schema. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly alongside the related loop-management siblings.

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 description adds meaning for 'owner' and 'loop_id' through the claim logic, but the 'lane' parameter is never explained. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 'Claim an open loop for an owner — FIRST CLAIM WINS,' which states a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_open_loops and mark_open_loop_resolved by focusing on the claiming action.

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 states when to use the tool: 'The foreman and every agent must claim a loop BEFORE touching files.' It also clarifies the conditions under which a claim is valid and what happens on re-claim or conflict, giving the agent clear behavioral expectations for when this tool is appropriate.

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