claim_signal

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the short lease, fairness bias for polling consumers, and optional filters. However, it omits failure scenarios or concurrency limits.

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 4 sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the complexity (6 params, output schema exists), the description covers core behavior and fairness bias. It does not mention return values, but an output schema exists. Lacks mention of lease extension or acknowledgment requirements.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'short lease' for lease_seconds and 'lightweight work coordination' for overall purpose, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Claim one signal with a short lease for lightweight work coordination.' It uses a specific verb (claim) and resource (signal), and distinguishes itself from siblings like ack_signal and extend_signal_lease by focusing on ownership acquisition.

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 this when a worker should take ownership of a pending signal before it acts.' It also explains the behavior when signal_id is omitted. However, it does not provide explicit when-not scenarios or alternatives.

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