Get Content Lock

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return contract — lock holder, expiry, or {locked: false} — which is meaningful since there is no output schema. It does not explain the 'advisory' semantics or error cases, so it is not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and scope come first, the return shape second. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter and readOnlyHint coverage, the main remaining need is the output shape — which the description supplies (lock holder, expiry, unlocked sentinel). It omits any note on what an 'advisory' lock implies for contention, so it falls just short of 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?

There is only one parameter (content_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about identifier format or required scoping, matching the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get the current advisory lock status for a content item') that an agent can immediately map to the operation. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the lock siblings (acquire_content_lock, release_content_lock, force_unlock_content), though the verb makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-oriented framing, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like acquire_content_lock or force_unlock_content. An agent can infer this is a status check, but nothing is stated.

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