haops_claim_module

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

The description discloses key behaviors: checks availability and marks as in-progress. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It lacks details on authentication requirements, what happens if the module is already claimed, or error conditions. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence covers the action and behavior, the second gives usage context. No extraneous words, well front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and good schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage. However, the lack of annotations means some behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions) are missing, which could be improved.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for the three parameters (verbose, moduleId, checkOnly). No parameter-specific explanation is given in the description.

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 action ('Claim a module for work'), the resource ('module'), and the specific behaviors ('Checks availability and marks as in-progress'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like haops_claim_feature, haops_claim_issue, and haops_claim_ticket by targeting a module.

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 'Use before starting implementation on a module,' providing a clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the resource differentiation among siblings makes the guidance sufficient.

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