get_user_locks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and states the return type ('an array of lock IDs'), which implies no side effects. It also briefly explains the relationship to get_lock. While it does not mention error handling or empty results, the description provides sufficient transparency for a simple query 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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a useful note about the return value and how to use it. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the sibling tools, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and how to follow up with get_lock, covering all essential aspects for an agent to use it correctly and effectively.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter 'address' with 'Wallet address to query locks for.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond rephrasing 'given wallet address.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline applies, and the description offers no extra semantic value.

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 and resource: 'Get all lock IDs for a given wallet address.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_lock by noting that the returned IDs can be queried individually with get_lock, which clarifies its role as a list/query tool.

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 gives clear usage context: this tool fetches all lock IDs for a wallet address, and then mentions that individual locks can be queried with get_lock. This provides a workflow hint and implicitly contrasts with get_lock. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over other siblings like get_locker_info, though the distinction is clear enough.

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