Read PG stat lock

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds key behaviors: empty results on PG < 19, the fields returned, and an example call. No contradiction with annotations.

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 (4 sentences) with front-loaded purpose, clear structure, and no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, return format, version constraints, and usage example, leaving no gaps given the output schema exists and parameters are simple.

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 only parameter (database) is fully documented in the schema with description and default; the tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the example call, but schema coverage is 100%.

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 tool returns every row from PG 19's pg_stat_lock view with specific counters, distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on PostgreSQL lock statistics, and provides explicit output structure.

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 mentions the version dependency (PG < 19 yields empty list) and the optional database parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_lock_hotspots.

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