claim_leadership

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool only succeeds on the main branch unless force is used, and force is restricted to stdio with a specific security implication (HTTP caller would gain delegate over every session). This goes beyond basic operation to reveal side effects and constraints.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary action and condition, followed by critical parameter and security details. No superfluous words; every sentence adds essential information.

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 simplicity (1 boolean parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers behavior, parameter meaning, and security well. However, it omits details on failure behavior (e.g., what happens if claim fails without force on non-main branch), leaving a minor gap.

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 sole parameter 'force' is explained in detail: its effect (overrides branch restriction), its restriction (stdio only), and a security consequence (HTTP caller gaining global delegate). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default, fully compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's purpose as 'Attempt to become leader,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_leader' and 'release_leadership' by describing the condition for success (main branch or force), making its unique role evident.

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 partial guidance on when to use the tool (succeeds on main branch, or with force on stdio) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'release_leadership' or 'get_leader.' The condition hints at appropriate contexts but lacks explicit 'when to use vs. not' statements.

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