lock

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

The description discloses the behavioral trait of clearing cached keys, which is genuinely useful context. However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't mention whether locked vaults can be re-locked, whether in-flight operations are affected, or whether this is destructive to any state beyond cache.

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?

One sentence, zero waste. Every word earns its place. The statement front-loads the verb and resource while adding a useful mechanism detail about how the operation works internally.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fairly complete. It explains the action and mechanism. It could benefit from noting state implications (e.g., what does locking mean for subsequent tool calls), but given the simplicity of the tool, this is largely adequate.

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 complete by default. The description explains the mechanism ('clearing cached keys') which gives the agent semantic context about what the operation does internally. With no params and 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 4 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 the verb (lock) and resource (vault), and explains the mechanism ('clearing cached keys from the agent'). While there's no explicit sibling differentiation, the contrast with 'unlock' sibling is clear. The mechanism detail adds specificity beyond a simple tautology.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage context (locking a vault after done with keys) but doesn't contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For a state-changing tool, there's no mention of prerequisites or side effects.

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