ygo_check_locks

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the mechanism ('Reads the Lua scripts') and that output includes both per-card locks and contradiction flags, which is real behavioral context. However, it omits cost/limits (how many cards are read by default, runtime for large decks), failure behavior for cards lacking scripts, and whether results are cached.

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, no filler, with the core capability front-loaded before the supporting detail about Lua scripts and conflict examples. Every clause adds information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does explain what is returned (per-card lock classification and conflict types), which is the key gap-filler. It falls short only on limits and error handling, which matters given an optional maxCards default of 20.

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 100%, so all three parameters (input, maxCards, passcodes) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a loose mention of 'the cards of a deck' and does not clarify accepted deck input formats or how passcodes interacts with input, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 target ('Detect summon/activation/material locks in the cards of a deck and flag contradictions') and then spells out the mechanism (reads Lua scripts) and output kind (which card locks into/out of which Summon type, plus conflicts). This clearly separates it from siblings like ygo_analyze_lua or ygo_consistency_lab, which do not report lock conflicts.

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?

Usage is implied by the deck-analysis framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing away from overlapping siblings such as ygo_analyze_lua, ygo_consistency_lab or ygo_check_legality. An agent must infer that this is for lock/conflict diagnosis rather than general script analysis.

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