check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does the most important thing by declaring 'Read-only' upfront, plus hinting at the response content (holders, intents, hot-class). It omits error behavior, whether paths are globs, staleness/consistency of the holder snapshot, and any permission requirements.

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 compact sentences with the safety property ('Read-only') front-loaded and the usage trigger at the end. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical jargon costs some immediate readability.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the shape of what comes back and the path format; it only sketches the return content conceptually. Adequate for an agent already familiar with the lock workflow, thin for a newcomer.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'paths' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does partially by noting 'paths/scopes', implying the array accepts scope identifiers as well as paths, but gives no format, glob syntax, or path-resolution rules.

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 framing — 'who holds these paths/scopes right now (holders with intents, hot-class membership)' — which identifies it as a read-only holder/lock query, distinct from siblings like claim, release, or extend. The jargon ('hot-class membership', 'intents') is undefined, so the exact semantics of what a 'holder' is remain somewhat opaque.

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?

'Call before expanding your edit scope' gives a clear, actionable trigger for using this tool. It does not name a specific alternative (e.g. 'use status for global view, check for per-path') or state when not to call it, keeping it short of full routing guidance.

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