check_locks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly implies a non-destructive read operation, and the description details the output content (which files, by whom, when they expire). This is sufficient for a 0-parameter read-only tool.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence conveys the primary action, and the second provides complementary details. All words are purposeful and front-loaded.

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 simple 0-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (fields: files, lock holder, expiration). It lacks any mention of prerequisites or edge cases, but given the low complexity, this is nearly complete.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties). According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all active file locks'). It also specifies what information is shown (locked files, by whom, expiration), which distinguishes it from siblings like lock_files and release_files.

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 context (when you want to see file locks) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No reference to sibling tools like lock_files or release_files, so the when-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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