codemerge_claims

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' signals a read-only operation, and it adds meaningful behavior details: it returns all files, scoped to a session, in claim order. It does not discuss prerequisites like session existence, but for a straightforward query tool this is adequate and does not contradict any annotation.

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 brief and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args section. There is no filler, tautology, or redundant schema restatement.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly: what is listed, the session scoping, the ordering, and the required argument. Remaining details such as error behavior are minor and reasonably left to the schema.

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 0%, but the description's Args block explains the sole parameter: 'session_id: The merge session ID.' This goes beyond the schema's bare title and is sufficient for an agent to provide the correct input, even if it does not add format or source guidance.

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 ('List'), names the exact resource ('files a session has claimed'), and adds an ordering constraint ('in claim order'). This clearly distinguishes it from the general claims_* and codemerge_* siblings by scoping it to a merge session's claimed-file list.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over claims_list, codemerge_status, or codemerge_sessions. The intended use is implied by the wording, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name alone.

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