engine_db_locks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the meaning of MELBIS_SYSTEM lock sources and warning that a held table is actively being modified. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the inspection semantics are strongly implied.

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?

Three sentences front-load the purpose, then provide a dense but relevant interpretation of lock source values, and close with actionable guidance. It is longer than a minimal description but every sentence contributes useful meaning.

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 parameterless inspection tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned, how to interpret ambiguous values, and when to use the tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 first sentence identifies the exact resource ('tables currently taken into work') and the output fields (holder, operation, since when). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like engine_db_tables and engine_db_unlocks.

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 says to check this before working with table data, including reads, and explains why: held tables are being changed. It gives clear usage context but does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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