feature_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the lease-vs-flag model, expiry, and the consequence of not claiming. It stops short of stating failure behavior if the feature is already held or the lease duration default.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then adding the lease model and a practical warning. The lease explanation is a bit elaborate, but it earns its place because it is central to the tool's behavior.

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?

The description gives a strong behavioral model for the claim action, which is enough to make a basic call with id and worker. However, it omits useful call context like the lease_minutes default, what happens on a conflicted claim, and what the return response contains.

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 never mentions id, worker, cwd, or lease_minutes. Schema coverage is only 50% (id and lease_minutes lack descriptions), so the description should compensate for parameter meaning but does not.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Take a feature to work on, if nobody else holds it.' This clearly identifies a claim operation and distinguishes it from siblings like feature_propose, feature_list, and feature_release.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: claim before starting work, and only if nobody else holds the feature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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