get_lock

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (owner, token, amount, unlock time, status) but doesn't explicitly state that it's a read-only operation or describe behavior when the lock ID doesn't exist. It does add some behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 a single sentence of nine words plus a second sentence listing return fields. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 getter with one parameter, the description is adequate. It specifies the resource and return fields. However, it lacks information about error handling or not-found responses, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with lock_id described as 'The lock ID to query'. The description repeats the concept but doesn't add additional semantics like format or validation rules.

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 retrieves details of a specific LP lock by its ID, listing the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_locks (which lists locks for a user) and get_locker_info (which gets locker-level info).

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 the tool is used when you have a lock ID and need its details, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives or mention alternatives like get_user_locks for listing all locks. It gives clear context but no exclusions.

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