bernstein_claim

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 explicitly states that the tool changes task assignment state and makes network requests ('Host effects: makes network requests'). This goes beyond a simple 'claim' verb and informs the agent of side effects, though it does not cover authorization or reversibility.

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 deliver the action, the state change, and the host effect without redundancy. Every sentence adds unique value, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (7 parameters, state-changing, network requests) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not address parameter semantics, eligibility criteria, or usage guidance, and though an output schema exists, the missing parameter context prevents a fully capable agent from using the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain any of the seven parameters (role, project, capability, claimer_id, max_attempts, completed_ids, claimer_card_fingerprint). The agent is left to infer semantics purely from parameter names, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb ('Claim') and resource ('next eligible task for an agent'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like bernstein_complete or bernstein_cancel. It also clarifies the state-changing nature by stating 'This changes task assignment state on the Bernstein server.'

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs to claim the next eligible task. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from sibling tools. No exclusions are necessary for this action.

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