lock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep,' which is valuable. However, it does not explain side effects, failure modes, or the meaning of wait_for_completion/max_attempts. This is only partial coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and adds a brief behavioral note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description gives the essential purpose and one behavior, but lacks context around the optional parameters and return behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent would need more details about what 'completion' means and when to set wait_for_completion or max_attempts. The tool is simple, so 3 is appropriate.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it remains at baseline.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Locks the vehicle doors.' It unambiguously distinguishes from the sibling 'unlock' tool. The parenthetical '(auto-wakes if asleep)' adds useful context without confusion.

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 usage—lock the vehicle doors when you want to secure the vehicle—but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention that 'unlock' is the reversal, nor any prerequisites or situations where locking would be inappropriate. For a simple command, the implied usage is clear but underdeveloped.

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