File Lock Management

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the advisory nature of locks (not mandatory), the 10-minute TTL with auto-release, and the three distinct operations. It doesn't cover permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, but provides solid operational context.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by TTL information, then clear bullet-like explanations of each action. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good operational context but lacks information about return values, error conditions, permission requirements, and how conflicts are handled. For a mutation tool (lock/unlock actions) with zero annotation coverage, this leaves some important gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying parameter semantics: it explains what each action does (acquire, release, check), mentions that 'file' is optional for status to list all locks, and implies the purpose of agentId for ownership tracking. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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's purpose as 'Advisory file locks to prevent conflicting edits' with specific actions (lock, unlock, status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like team_manage, team_message, and team_task by focusing exclusively on file lock management rather than general team operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use each action (acquire lock, release lock, check status) and mentions the auto-release TTL, which helps understand timing considerations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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