list_locks

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, but it never explicitly states that no side effects occur, whether permissions are required, or what constitutes an 'active' lock (e.g., does it show locks held by the current user only, or all users?). The description lacks explicit transparency about its behavior beyond the action itself.

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 a single, efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it maximally concise while conveying the core functionality.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameters, the description should ideally specify what the returned data contains (e.g., lock paths, owners, timestamps). It only says 'list all ... file locks,' which leaves the return format unspecified. An agent might need additional context to parse the results correctly, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the severity of this gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for zero parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It correctly implies no input is required.

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 verb 'List' with resource 'file locks' and scope 'all currently active' gives a specific, unambiguous purpose. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like lock_file and unlock_file, which perform mutations, and check_lock, which targets a specific lock. The agent can identify this as the 'list all locks' tool without ambiguity.

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 the tool is for retrieving the full set of active locks, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_lock (for a single lock) or view_changes (for modifications). No exclusion or alternative routing is provided, so the agent must infer usage from sibling names.

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