get_next_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses claiming semantics (reservation until result recorded), the negative consequence of holding without reporting ('work nobody can do'), that a batch never contains competing answers, and that entries may include min_depth under conflict review. It also mentions stale lease reclamation and TTL behavior. Some side-effect details (e.g., exact state changes to claims) are implied but not fully spelled out.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage rule, batch property, and return format. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return format (list, optional min_depth). It also explains edge-case behavior (goal_scope_empty) and claim lifecycle. It lacks explicit details on error responses or authentication, but for a tool with 4 optional params and no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: it reinforces the count parameter with the 'only ask for what you will probe' rule and explains the goal_scope_empty reason for goal_id. It also ties lease_ttl_s to renew_claim. This extra context elevates the score above baseline.

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+resource: 'Reclaim stale leases and select the next target(s).' This clearly states the tool's core function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_claims (which lists claims) or renew_claim (which extends TTL). It further differentiates by mentioning batch semantics and conflict-review context.

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?

Provides actionable guidance: 'ask only for what you will probe before your next call' sets a clear usage rule, and the schema description for lease_ttl_s explicitly mentions calling renew_claim as an alternative. The dry_run parameter description clarifies when to peek without claiming. However, it does not explicitly compare to list_nodes or get_active_claims, missing some sibling differentiation.

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