bernstein_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: the claim process, dependency checking, signed claim receipt, refusal receipt, and offline verifiability. It discloses the content-addressed and immutable nature of the receipt.

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 well-structured with a summary, explanation, Args, and Returns. It is slightly verbose but every part adds value; front-loads the core purpose. Could be marginally more concise.

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 complexity (dependency gating, signed receipts) and 7 parameters, the description is thorough. It explains the eligibility logic, return format, references for offline verification, and handles the case of no eligible tasks. No gaps.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains each of the 7 parameters in detail, such as completed_ids defining which tasks are eligible and claimer_card_fingerprint being bound into the receipt. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type constraints (0% schema description coverage).

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 'Claim the next eligible task and return a verifiable claim receipt.' It explains the dependency-gated claim path and contrasts with a 'raw claim,' distinguishing it from siblings like bernstein_run, bernstein_complete, etc.

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 explains when a task is offered (depends_on in completed_ids) and that a filter with no eligible task returns a signed refusal receipt. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, 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.