audit_locks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful constraints ('only approved workspace roots' and 'actual .lock files') and 'scan' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, side effects, or behavior when the optional roots parameter is omitted.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The verb, scope constraint, and target format are all present 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?

The tool is low-complexity: one optional parameter, simple enum values, and no output schema. The description gives the essential scope constraint and target. It is mostly complete, though the optional-roots default behavior and return shape are left to inference.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It connects the roots parameter to 'approved workspace roots' and the enum values are workspace names, giving the parameter a policy meaning. However, it does not explain whether omitting roots scans all approved roots or how the roots parameter filters the scan.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Scan') with a clear resource ('approved workspace roots') and target ('actual .lock files'). It cleanly distinguishes itself from the sibling health/job monitoring tools, none of which deal with lock-file auditing.

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 conveys usage context by explaining that only approved workspace roots are scanned, which acts as a safety constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but no sibling tool overlaps with lock auditing, so the context is reasonably clear.

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