who

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns exit codes indicating ownership status, reveals the information returned (owner, TTL, PID liveness), and implies no side effects (read-only). This is comprehensive for a status-check 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 long, each sentence carrying distinct information: the first explains what the tool returns, the second explains its utility and exit codes. No wasted words; all content earns its place.

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 complete for a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema. Exit codes are explained, and the usage context is clear. However, it could optionally specify the output format more explicitly (e.g., JSON fields), but the current level suffices.

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 already describes the 'instance' parameter well (100% coverage), but the description adds value by explaining the format ('as registered in mcp-locks') and referencing the 'list' tool for discovery, which improves usability beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'get detail' and the resource 'single MCP instance', listing specific attributes (owner, claim time, TTL, PID liveness). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list' (which discovers instances) and 'claim' (which acquires ownership).

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 advises using this tool before claiming to decide whether to wait, pick a different instance, or force-steal. It also explains exit codes, which helps the agent interpret the result and decide next actions.

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