lock_waits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety. It explicitly marks the operation as a read and identifies the underlying system tables for MySQL and MariaDB, adding valuable behavioral context about flavor-branching. It does not cover possible output size or permissions, but the read-only nature is clear.

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?

At just three lines, every sentence is informative. The [READ] prefix and source-table details are front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, sources, and parameter meaning. It lacks an explicit return-format description, but that may be self-evident from the name and content, and the sibling tools fill in broader context.

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 provides only a default null, but the description explains 'target' as a target name from config and says to omit for default, giving it practical meaning beyond the schema. With a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 opens with '[READ]' and states 'InnoDB wait-for edges (blocked session -> blocking session)', clearly identifying the tool as a read-only resource for lock-wait relationships. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lock_wait_rca, which provides analysis rather than raw data.

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 usage for inspecting lock-wait dependencies but does not explicitly state when to choose this over lock_wait_rca or list_transactions. No exclusion criteria or alternative references are given, leaving usage context mostly inferred.

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