explain_lock

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 only states the tool 'explains' lock acquisition, without disclosing whether the DDL is executed, if a database connection is needed, or if there are any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that could potentially run DDL.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loading the action and the resource. It contains no filler or redundant wording.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description provides only the core function. It does not explain what the explanation looks like, how pg_version changes behavior, or what 'impact' refers to. Adequate but with clear room for additional context.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (sql and pg_version) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond its core purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and a clear resource ('PostgreSQL lock a DDL statement acquires'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on migration analysis or fixes. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 implies usage for analyzing lock behavior of DDL statements, but provides no explicit context or alternatives. It does not mention when to use this tool versus sibling tools like analyze_migration or check_before_apply.

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