agentbus_lock_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'no auth required' and 'without acquiring', indicating a read-only, low-privilege operation. This adds value beyond structured fields. It does not cover potential edge cases like non-existent resources, but for a simple status check, the given information is sufficient.

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 that is concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the condition (without acquiring), and the auth requirement. No unnecessary information.

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 lock status check tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the basic operation and auth requirement. However, it lacks details about what the lock state encompasses and does not help the agent understand the 'resource' parameter. Given the schema coverage gap and no parameter descriptions, more context would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description fails to explain the 'resource' parameter. It does not specify what a resource is, what format it should be in, or any constraints. With a single parameter and no description, the agent is left guessing about its meaning.

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 checks lock state without acquiring, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentbus_lock_acquire. It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it could be more specific about what 'lock state' entails, lacking slightly in precision.

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 when to use this tool: for checking lock state without needing to acquire a lock. It also notes no authentication is required, providing guidance on access. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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