get_table_lock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While it implies a read-only diagnostic operation, it fails to mention performance impact (does it block?), real-time vs cached data, or what specific lock metadata is returned.

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 bilingual format (Chinese with English parenthetical) is efficient and accessible without redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the action verb immediately followed by the target resource.

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?

While adequate for a zero-parameter tool, the description lacks output format details (e.g., whether it returns thread IDs, lock modes, or blocked queries). Without an output schema, this omission creates a gap in contextual completeness.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are needed (server-wide check), consistent with the empty schema.

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 checks for row-level and table-level locks in the current MySQL server. The specific resource (locks) and scope (current server) are explicit, and the function is distinct from siblings like get_table_desc or optimize_sql.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_sql (which could query information_schema directly). Missing prerequisites such as required privileges (e.g., PROCESS) or scenarios like deadlock investigation.

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