force_release_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool force-releases all locks, which is a broad and forceful action, but it doesn't mention potential side effects like disrupting active lock holders, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission requirements. The description is adequate but not deeply transparent about consequences.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence serving as an immediate, urgent call to action ('Emergency: Force-release ALL active locks') and the second clarifying the scope. Every word earns its place—there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, zero-parameter emergency tool, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and its all-encompassing scope. It could add a caution about irreversibility or impact on other agents, but given the simplicity and the emergency context, it is mostly complete.

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, so the schema is empty and coverage is trivially 100%. The description confirms that no input is needed because it operates on all locks. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 that the tool force-releases ALL active locks, freeing every locked file in the repository. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like release_lock (which targets a specific lock) and acquire_lock. The scope is unambiguous and the verb 'force-release' is specific.

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 explicitly limits usage to emergency scenarios: 'Use only when agents are stuck or locks are stale.' This provides a clear trigger condition and implies normal lock releases should use release_lock instead, though it doesn't name the alternative explicitly. The 'Emergency:' prefix reinforces the exceptional nature of this tool.

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