uvcs_locks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the unfiltered call fans out across all repositories on the server, which is a meaningfully broader and heavier operation than the path-filtered case. It stops short of describing result shape or performance limits.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the broad default behavior is front-loaded ahead of the narrowing option. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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-required-param read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and safe annotations, this is nearly complete. The only shortfall is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at how lock entries are structured or ordered.

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 coverage is 100%, with both `paths` and `scope` documented inline including the enum meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that paths are relative to the current workspace and are optional, but adds nothing about `scope` beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('List exclusive locks') and even names the underlying command (cm lock list). The two operating modes — server-wide listing vs. workspace-file checking — are spelled out, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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 gives a clear selection rule: omit paths to enumerate every repository on the server, pass paths to target specific files in this workspace. It doesn't name any alternative tool or exclusion, but there is no sibling lock tool to route away from, so context is adequate.

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