list_file_reservations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: only *active exclusive* reservations are returned and released/expired records are filtered out, which tells the agent what it will and won't see.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: scope and return shape first, exclusion filter second, motivating use case last. No redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields ({id, agent, path_pattern, reason, expires_ts}) and the filtering rule. Combined with a single fully documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already explains project_key as the absolute path of the primary checkout. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('return every active exclusive reservation in a project') and pins down scope in the same sentence. The exclusion of released/expired reservations and the exact return shape separate it cleanly from siblings like renew_file_reservations, release_file_reservations, and file_reservation_paths.

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?

It explains one concrete caller (the git guard refusing commits/pushes on reserved paths), which implies the agent should call it before touching paths. But it never says when to prefer this over siblings such as file_reservation_paths or renew_file_reservations, nor any preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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