taskops_take

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

The description discloses that claiming returns a bundle of information (goal, spec, thread, notes, collisions, worktree) and restricts use to workers, which adds useful behavioral context given no annotations. However, it does not mention the side effect of claiming (e.g., assigning the card to the caller, possibly locking it), leaving a transparency gap.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Claim your card') and then lists the returned items compactly. It is efficient with no obvious fluff, though the long list makes it slightly dense. The structure is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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 has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It omits the create-and-claim functionality implied by the title parameter, does not describe the return format in a usable way, and fails to explain conditional parameter usage. The description covers only the most basic claim action, leaving substantial gaps.

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 schema covers all nine parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., actor explains sub-agent MCP sharing, repo_path explains host pinning), so the schema itself provides strong parameter meaning. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage but not exceeding it.

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 the concrete verb 'Claim' and identifies the resource as 'your card', and it lists specific returned artifacts (milestone goal, spec, thread, etc.). This clearly conveys the tool's primary function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like taskops_assign or taskops_update, so the distinctiveness is not fully highlighted.

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 'Workers only' gives a clear audience restriction, and 'Claim your card' implies the main use case. But it does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention the create-and-claim behavior described for the title parameter. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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