lock_waits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the exact data sources (performance_schema.data_lock_waits on MySQL 8.x vs information_schema.innodb_lock_waits on MariaDB) and that behavior is flavor-branched. It does not mention permission requirements or result shape, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with a '[READ]' marker and a one-line purpose, followed by the implementation detail and a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information and there is no padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, data sources, flavor branching, and the sole parameter. The only gap is that, with no output schema, it does not hint at the shape of returned rows.

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 carries the burden and does document 'target' as a config name with a default-when-omitted behavior. That meaning is genuinely absent from the schema. It does not clarify valid target names or matching semantics, so it is not exhaustive.

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 gives a specific verb (reads) and resource (InnoDB wait-for edges, blocked -> blocking session) plus the exact underlying tables. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like list_transactions or overview. It stops short of naming the closely-related sibling lock_wait_rca, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The overlapping lock_wait_rca sibling in particular is never mentioned, and no exclusions or conditions are given. Usage is only implied by the '[READ]' tag and the subject matter.

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