is_command_lock

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'check' implies a non-mutating read, but the description does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, what the return value represents, or what happens for an unknown command. The output schema may cover return type, but the description itself is thin.

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 clear sentence followed by a compact Args section. Every word is functional and there is no filler or repetition. It is model-efficient for an agent to parse.

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 query with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. Still, it omits explicit mention of read-only behavior, the relationship to lock_command, or any error/edge-case semantics. Given the low complexity, the gaps are not severe but are noticeable.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description's 'cmd: Command name to check' is the only explanation of the parameter. It adds the meaning that cmd is a command name and is the subject of the lock check. However, it provides no format, examples, or accepted values, so it only minimally compensates for the schema's silence.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Check if a command is locked.' This clearly identifies a lock-status query and distinguishes it from the sibling 'lock_command' by using 'check' rather than a locking verb. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the verb alone is enough to differentiate.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as lock_command. It does not state a scenario like 'before running a possibly locked command' or mention any exclusions. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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