hb_lock_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and scoped to configured roots, which prevents an agent from expecting arbitrary paths. It says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether stale locks are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering verb, resource, scope, and safety trait with no wasted words.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, where it is scoped, and that it is safe. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., what fields each lock entry contains), which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 takes zero parameters, so no parameter-level explanation is required; baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'configured roots' correctly signals that scope is implicit rather than caller-supplied.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (currently active locks) with scope (across configured roots). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling hb_lock_check, but the 'all currently active' phrasing largely conveys the distinction.

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?

Use is implied by the listing semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing hint against hb_lock_check (which presumably inspects a single lock). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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