locks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation via 'show' and discloses that the output includes blocking information. It does not mention permissions or output formatting, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 with no filler. It states the action, the target resource, and the key additional information ('blocking information') efficiently.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the agent should expect: current locks and blocking details. It is slightly incomplete in not positioning this tool relative to active_connections, but the zero-input nature keeps the gap small.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('show'), a clear resource ('current locks in the database'), and a useful qualifier ('with blocking information'). It is distinct from generic siblings like query and active_connections, though it does not explicitly call out a sibling by name.

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 a diagnostic use case—investigating current lock activity and blocking — but it does not state when to prefer this tool over related siblings like active_connections or explain. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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