lock_screen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds which locker binaries are used, which is useful context, but says nothing about unlock requirements (password re-entry), whether it is idempotent if already locked, or whether it affects active recordings — real behavioral concerns for an agent.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the mechanism in parentheses. No filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output tool, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. It could go further by noting that unlocking requires user credentials or that locking is immediate/irreversible from the agent's perspective, but the core is present.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The mention of swaylock/hyprlock hints at the implementation but adds nothing parameter-wise, which is fine for an argument-less tool.

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?

States a specific verb (lock) and resource (the screen) and identifies the underlying mechanism (swaylock/hyprlock). No sibling tool competes for this action, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by the nature of a zero-parameter lock action, but the description gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or notes about when not to use it (e.g. during recording or projector sessions where siblings exist). Adequate but not instructive.

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