Walk blocking chains

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context by detailing what the tool does (detect cycles, trace paths) and specifies the full structure of the returned object (cycles, paths, roots, nodes, mermaid). 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 well-structured, starting with the primary action then listing details. It is reasonably concise, though it could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params) and the description fully explains the return value structure (cycles, paths, roots, nodes, mermaid). With an output schema (assumed), the description is complete and leaves no ambiguity about the response.

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 50% (only 'database' is described, but 'limit' is not). The description does not mention either parameter, so it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given the gap, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 walks and reconstructs the lock-wait graph, detects deadlocks, and traces blocking paths. It uses specific verbs and a distinct resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'find_blocking_chains', which likely has a similar purpose.

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 implies usage for analyzing blocking chains and deadlocks, and explicitly labels it as read-only. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_blocking_chains', nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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