lock_lock_acquire

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

Without annotations, the description discloses auto-expire and blocking wait, but does not detail behavior on lock already held, timeout, or reentrancy. Basic transparency but lacks edge-case coverage.

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 very concise: a header line followed by short, clear explanations of each parameter and the return value. No wasted words, front-loaded, easy to parse.

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 of a locking tool and the presence of an output schema (mentioned), the description covers the main functional aspects: name, owner, TTL, wait, and return fields. However, it could mention default behavior (e.g., wait_s=0) and failure modes.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: owner (identifies caller), ttl_s (auto-expire), wait_s (blocking wait). It also describes the return object. Adds significant meaning 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 the tool acquires a named lock and identifies key parameters (owner, ttl_s, wait_s). It distinguishes itself from siblings like lock_lock_try by mentioning 'blocking wait', making the verb+resource+scope specific.

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 implies this is the blocking acquire via the 'wait_s' parameter but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like lock_lock_try (non-blocking) or lock_lock_status. Guidance on when to use which is missing.

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