Check whether a specific path is locked

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

Goes well beyond annotations. Annotations already say read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds detail about parent-lock inheritance, the special never-expiring lock types, and crucially the fail-closed behavior: unreadable paths, missing config, or errors yield 'unknown' and safe-to-proceed=false, never a false 'free'. This is exactly the behavioral transparency agents need.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential answer (whether one path may be modified), then lock inheritance behaviormatic: fail-closed detail. Slightly dense but 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?

For a read-only check with no output schema, the description covers the verdict semantics, fail-closed behavior backlog and lock-scope inheritance. It doesn't spell out the full response object fields, but describes the key reported items (lock type/scope/expiry).

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%, so the schema already documents the sole parameter. The description adds context (the path is checked including parent-directory locks) but doesn't need to add syntax since the schema is complete. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Answers whether one path may be modified') and adds the key distinguishing detail of inherited locks from parent directories. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like controlcenter_list_locks, which merely list locks rather than evaluating a specific path. Scope, expiry, and lock-prefix behavior are also named.

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 clearly implies when to use it: before modifying a path, to check whether it is locked. It explains the semantics (inheritance from parents, effective lock reporting), which helps an agent select it over list_locks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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