Check for scope conflicts

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) by explicitly stating the tool is purely informational, has no side effects, never blocks or vetoes, and cannot prevent lock_create. It also discloses the static-prefix glob heuristic's intentional bias toward false positives and mentions a documented case it does not catch. This provides rich behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 moderately long but every sentence conveys meaningful information: purpose, non-blocking nature, heuristic behavior, and return shape. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by necessary elaboration. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-organized without redundancy.

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 description is comprehensive for a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity. It covers side effects (none), blocking behavior (none), heuristic logic (with a pointer to README), return shape (same as lock_query, empty array if none), and provides actionable steps for the agent (proceed, coordinate, narrow scope). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes 'scope' as glob patterns for files/paths. The description reinforces this by referring to 'glob patterns you pass in' and adds context about how overlap is determined (static-prefix heuristic, bias toward false positives), which goes beyond the schema's simple definition and gives the parameter practical semantics.

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: 'Checks whether any currently ACTIVE lock claims file(s)/path(s) that overlap the glob patterns you pass in.' It uses a specific verb ('Checks') and a specific resource (active locks vs. glob patterns), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is purely informational and cannot block lock_create.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool ('to give you information so you... can decide for yourself whether to proceed, coordinate with the other lock's owner, or pick a narrower scope') and what it does not do ('never blocks, refuses, or vetoes anything'). It references lock_query and lock_create as context but does not explicitly compare against all sibling tools for other use cases, making it clear but not exhaustive.

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