cache_lock_acquire

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: lock mechanism (SET NX PX), fencing token return, auto-expiry to prevent deadlocks, and retry logic. It adds valuable context beyond the schema.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (distributed lock with retries), the description is complete for agent use. It mentions the return value (fencing token) even without an output schema, and covers key behaviors. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on failure (e.g., null return).

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 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it acquires a distributed lock using Redis SET NX PX (Redlock-lite) and returns a fencing token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool cache_lock_release by describing the complementary action.

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 explains when to use the tool (to acquire a lock) and mentions cache_lock_release for early release. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though this is not critical for a lock acquisition tool.

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