get_lock_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds that it queries a specific DMV and includes lock modes and SQL text, giving useful context, but does not mention ordering, pagination, or performance implications.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key output fields without unnecessary detail. Every element earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the tool is largely self-explanatory. It could benefit from a brief usage note or alternative pointer, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only diagnostic.

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?

Both parameters (limit, database_name) are fully described in the schema with defaults and semantics. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score.

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 uses the specific verb 'get' and names the exact resource (lock details from sys.dm_tran_locks) along with the fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagnostics like wait stats or active sessions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_currently_waiting_tasks or get_wait_stats. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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