get_active_claims

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering behavior ('unconsumed, unexpired') and implies a read-only operation via 'Return'. For a tool with no parameters and no side effects mentioned, this is reasonably transparent, though it doesn't describe error scenarios or the return envelope.

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 a single sentence, front-loads the verb and object, and every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition; it states what it returns, the filter criteria, and the purpose in a compact form.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-like behavior, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's core function and filter criteria. The presence of sibling tools like renew_claim and release_claims fills in the broader context of what 'claims' are, so the description doesn't need to define the domain.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no extraneous parameter info. It correctly focuses on the tool's semantics instead.

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 ('Return') and resource ('live claims') with precise qualifications ('unconsumed, unexpired') and a clear purpose ('for resuming work'). This distinguishes it from siblings like renew_claim or release_claims, which handle different aspects of claim management.

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 phrase 'for resuming work' clearly implies the use case: fetching current active claims when a user wants to pick up where they left off. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool over renew_claim or release_claims.

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