List active project locks on this host

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the wall‑clock budget behavior, including that roots not started within the budget are reported as unscanned, and that an incomplete scan says nothing about unreached roots. This is critical non-obvious behavior not visible in any structured field. It also discloses a hard prerequisite (ENVIRONMENT variable) that would otherwise be an invocation guess.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a clear read-only reassurance, a behavioral caveat, a prerequisite, and the sibling alternative. Each sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancies.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still conveys the output's content (path, type, scope, owner, remaining time) and explicitly reports when roots were left unscanned. Combined with the prerequisites, performance caveats, and sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 schema already explains both parameters (rootsFile's fallback chain and budgetSeconds' overshoot semantics) at 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond mentioning a 'wall-clock budget' in prose. Baseline 3 is appropriate under high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists every active LOCK*.txt across the configured roots'), enumerating the returned fields, and closes by naming the sibling it is not ('For a single path use controlcenter_check_lock'). An agent can immediately tell this is the broad scan tool and not a point query.

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?

It explicitly states when to prefer this tool (listing locks over configured roots) and provides the alternative with the deciding condition: 'For a single path use controlcenter_check_lock, which is far faster and also sees inherited locks.' It also warns about the long scan profile, letting the agent decide whether a full scan is worth it.

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