Check Cloud Lock

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about checking cloud sync filter blocking, but doesn't disclose what the output indicates (e.g., boolean result, error handling) or any side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Description is two sentences, each adding value: the action and the Windows-only caveat. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action.

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, one-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly adequate. It covers purpose and platform constraint. However, lack of output schema means the return value is not described, which would help agents interpret results. Still, the tool is straightforward enough that this is a minor 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 single parameter 'path' has 100% schema description coverage ('Path to check'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Prüft' (checks), the resource 'path for cloud sync filter blocking', and scope 'nur auf Windows relevant'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fc_list_processes or fc_kill_process, which have different purposes.

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 mentions Windows relevance, implying when to use (on Windows systems when cloud sync issues are suspected), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools among siblings.

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